Ex Prince Andrew Arrested Over Epstein Ties

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has. officially been arrested. Now, this is. on suspicion of misconduct in [music]. public office. He has been in the. Epstein files. He's been part of the. Epstein conversation for quite some. time. This is a major major development. and escalation. But, what he was. arrested for and whether or not they. could successfully [music]. prosecute him, that's what we got to. talk about. We're going to break it down. right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law&Crime. I'm Jesse [music] Weber. So, for weeks now we've been going.

through all of the Epstein [music]. files, right? The document releases, page after page of emails, internal. reports, archived communications. And. the question sitting underneath all of. it has been very simple. Is any of this. actually going to lead to anything? I. mean, we just did an episode on the. fallout for the high-profile. politicians, the business leaders. We've. been seeing that. And then what just. happened? If you've been watching the. news today, you have heard that the. Thames Valley Police arrested Andrew. Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as.

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, on. suspicion of misconduct in public. office. This carries potentially life in. prison. It happened reportedly just. after 8:00 a.m. local time. Six unmarked. police vehicles show up at Andrew's. place. Oh, and he was taken into custody. on his 66th birthday. Now, he remains in. custody at the time of this recording. This point it doesn't appear he's. officially been indicted, so just. arrested on suspicion of this charge. But, I will tell you if the charges. follow, okay, this would mark, it's. already been marked, a historic moment.

You have a senior member of the British. royal family arrested in connection with. actions tied to official government. duties. Now, the Thames Valley Police. issued a statement early on that read, "As part of the investigation, we have. today arrested a man in his 60s from. Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in. public office and are carrying out. searches at addresses in Berkshire and. Norfolk. The man remains in police. custody at this time." Now, that's. standard for authorities over there to. not identify the person that they. arrested, but King Charles III, so we're.

talking about Andrew's brother, later. released the statement, okay? And this. is what it said. I have learned with the. deepest concern the news about Andrew. Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of. misconduct in public office. What now. follows is the full, fair, and proper. process by which this issue is. investigated in the appropriate manner. and by the appropriate authorities. In. this, as I have said before, they have. our full and wholehearted support and. cooperation. Let me state clearly the. law must take its course. As this. process continues, it would not be right.

for me to comment further on this. matter. My family and I will continue in. our duty and service to you all. So, basically, in my view, that's the king. saying, "Andrew, you're on your own. We. cannot even have the appearance of being. involved in this. We cannot have even. the appearance that we're affecting this. investigation or tainting this. investigation or getting involved in. this investigation." And I would say. this is not surprising considering what. Andrew's already been stripped of his. royal titles. He was already ostracized.

by the family by all accounts. And I. want to back up on that for a second. because if you're just hearing this now, you might be probably thinking, "Wait a. second. Wait a second. Andrew was. arrested. Is this about Jeffrey Epstein? Is this about allegations of sex. crimes?". No. This is about Epstein. There is an. arrest, but it's not in the way that you. think, okay? So, it starts off, just to. give you some background. Jeffrey. Epstein, in the late 1990s, early 2000s, Epstein, as we know, cultivated. relationships with politicians, billionaires, celebrities, and royalty. One of those relationships was with.

Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, the. second son of Queen Elizabeth II. They were photographed together. Andrew. stayed at Epstein's homes, apparently. They moved in overlapping circles. through Epstein's then girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, or associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. And for years, it was. framed as very controversial and as bad. judgment. Embarrassing, maybe not. criminal. Then, in 2015, Virginia. Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit alleging. that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine. Maxwell trafficked her and that she was. forced to have sex with Andrew,

including when she was just 17 years. old. Now, Andrew denied the allegations, denied meeting her, questioned the. authenticity of a photo showing them or. seemingly showing them together. In. 2019, he attempted to repair the PR. damage with that now infamous BBC. Newsnight interview, you know, the pizza. alibi, the claim that he couldn't sweat. It collapsed almost immediately. And. within days, Queen Elizabeth removed him. from public duties. In 2022, he settled. Giuffre's civil lawsuit for an. undisclosed amount, admitting no. liability. And after that, it seemed.

like the story might be over. Andrew. kind of retreated from public life. But. here's the thing, the Epstein story. didn't die. Andrew was actually stripped. of his royal titles. And then in January. of 2026, the US Department of Justice. released another massive dump of Epstein. files. And buried in those documents was. something that shifted the focus. entirely. This brings us to what we're. talking about today. It was about. Andrew's official government role. Between 2001 and Andrew served as the. United Kingdom's special representative. for international trade and investment.

This is a formal government position. It's a trade envoy, a crown servant. And. in the released communications, the. emails, it seems that investigators. found messages suggesting that Andrew. allegedly shared official trip reports. and what appeared to be a confidential. investment briefs, so sensitive. information, with Jeffrey Epstein. And. that this was in 2010. So, this was 2. years after Epstein's 2008 conviction in. Florida. Remember solicitation of.

prostitution? Remember of a minor, too? And that detail matters because in 2010, Andrew wasn't just a royal family. member. He was serving in an official. government capacity. And under UK law, crown servants are bound by duties. relating to the handling of sensitive. government information, the Official. Secrets Act of 1989, which is the. relevant version here, specifically. protects information relating to. international relations. That's the key. That seems to be what investigators are. now examining. All right, so by the way, we're still kind of in the beginning. stages of 2026, but I will tell you, if.

you got debt, the threat to your. financial health, that stays the same. Debt is a silent killer, interest. compounds, fees stack up, your financial. problems multiply. Doesn't need to stay. that way. Our sponsor PDS debt has. helped hundreds of thousands escape. debt, reduce what they owe, and take. back control. So, whether it's credit. cards, personal loans, medical bills, PDS debt has customized options to help. you pay off debt faster, and there's no. minimum credit score that's required. They look beyond the numbers at your. unique financial situation and design. personalized plans to help you pay off. debt faster and put money back where it.

belongs, in your pocket. Plus, they're. A+ rated by the Better Business Bureau. Every month you wait is going to cost. you more. Your way out, though, it. starts right now. Don't wait for debt to. strike again, break free in 30 seconds, get your free personalized assessment. and the best option for you at. pdsdebt.com/sidebar. That's pdsdebt.com/sidebar. pdsdebt.com/sidebar. Now, this arrest itself, it isn't under. the official secrets act, at least not. yet, but it has been reported that. Andrew's been arrested on suspicion of.

misconduct in public office. That is a. separate common law offense, carries its. own legal threshold. The Crown. Prosecution Service, so the main. prosecutorial arm out in the UK, defines. it this way. A public officer acting as. such commits the offense if they. willfully neglect their duty or. willfully misconduct themselves to such. a degree as to amount to an abuse of the. public's trust in the office holder. without reasonable excuse or. justification. And the court of appeal. has described the threshold as a high.

one, that you're talking about conduct. that is quote so far below acceptable. standards as to amount to an abuse of. the public's trust. And I'm going to get. into that a little bit more about what. that means, but in Andrew's case, the. alleged misconduct is the sharing of. sensitive government information with a. private citizen, Jeffrey Epstein, who. should not have received this, right? That seems to be what the main argument. would be. And I want to walk you through. how we got to this arrest because after. the January 2026 document dump, there. were emails that surfaced from 2010. So. again, 2 years after Epstein's.

conviction. And they showed what. appeared to be ongoing communication. between Epstein and someone identified. in the files as the Duke. Now, the Duke, presumably Andrew, the Duke of York. And. here's what those emails purportedly. contain. November 30th, 2010, Andrew's. special advisor, Ahmet Patel, sends him. an email and it reads, "Sir, please find. attached the visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen in. relation to your recent visit to. Southeast Asia." And attached are. official documents, government records.

generated seemingly during Andrew's work. as the UK's trade envoy. According to. the files, Andrew appears to have. forwarded those reports, the email, their contents, to Jeffrey Epstein. And. there's no forwarding message, no. context given. There's another email. from December 24th, 2010, so Christmas. Eve. Andrew appears to write to Epstein. and includes what he describes as a. confidential brief on investment. opportunities in Afghanistan's Helmand. province. And here's what the email.

says. So first of all, it says, "To J". and then it ends "From A.". Attached is a confidential brief. produced by the Provincial. Reconstruction Team in Helmand Province. for international investment. opportunities. These are not exclusive. to Helmand Province, but principally. focused on that province. I'm going to. offer this elsewhere in my network, including Abu Dhabi, but would be very. interested in your comments, views, or. ideas as to whom I could also usefully. show this to attract some interest. I. have sadly already found out that Gates. Foundation doesn't do anything in. Afghanistan." So this time, Helmand.

Province in 2010, this is our. understanding, this was at the height of. the war in Afghanistan, and there were. British troops that were on the ground. there. And Andrew is allegedly sending. information about this to Jeffrey. Epstein. So, it kind of gives you an. idea of what we're talking about. You. have a former prince, the king's. brother, arrested on his birthday, police searching royal properties, too, by the way. We'll talk about that. And a. criminal investigation into whether. sensitive government information was. improperly shared with, you know, a. convicted sex offender. Now, the late.

Virginia Giuffre, her family released a. statement today. And you'll remember, as. I mentioned this, Giuffre was the woman. who alleged that Epstein trafficked her. to Andrew. And by the way, her. posthumous memoir kept this story alive. Her family said, "At last, today our. broken hearts have been lifted at the. news that no one is above the law, not. even royalty. He was never a prince. For. survivors everywhere, Virginia did this. for you." I want to talk about this. Okay, let me bring in my friend Richard. Schoenstein, litigator, trial attorney.

Uh okay, your reaction to what? The. first senior royal to ever be arrested? This is a big development in the Epstein. saga. So, first your reaction to this. news. So, my reaction to the news is, "Really? This guy's been under suspicion. of sex trafficking and sexual abuse for. years and years and years, but the thing. that's made the British government angry. is he maybe gave away some money.

secrets. And that's what they're going. to prosecute him for.". >> argument would be, isn't this probably. the more straightforward path to. prosecution than sex-related crimes if. you just look at the emails? It is. probably more straightforward and there. may be a higher degree of proof. I give. you that. But, you know, no one is. facing consequences for what went on on. that island. And so, now this guy's. going to be prosecuted cuz he sent an. email with some trade secrets?

Eh. Well, I want to get into that. um, but I guess the question is in the. overall scheme, and look, you're right, he hasn't been uh officially charged. with respect to any sex-related crimes. I hear you, but in the idea of releasing. the Epstein files, transparency, accountability, talked earlier about the. statement from Virginia Giuffre's. family. There are those who say, "Okay, this is a measure of some sort of. accountability for someone having a. connection to Jeffrey Epstein." And.

again, look, he hasn't been uh. officially indicted, at least in time at. the time of this recording. He hasn't. been officially uh charged or found. guilty, but obviously people looking at. this, and he did a full episode about. what's accountability, people resigning, information coming out, ridicule, investigations. This is something. This is something. against the former prince. I mean, it. wasn't just that he was stripped of his. titles and was essentially banished. Now, he's uh there's a there's an. investigation. Yeah, well, it's something. It's. potentially something. And I And I think.

that the being stripped of his title and. his royal duties was somewhat. significant and probably a more. significant step than anything we've. seen in the United States, where we. refuse to release the full files, we. refuse to do anything about it, we just. ignore it or downplay it. So, there's. something being done, and if it makes. some of the survivors or their families, if it alleviates some of what they've.

had to suffer over the years, then I'm. happy for it. I just think it's a little. it's a little off target. I mean, he. could be looking at life in prison. I'm. I'm not sure that's exactly what would. happen, but there is a possibility. Well, that's the other thing, Jesse. We. have to see how it plays out. I mean, bringing As you know, I mean, you follow. more of these cases than anybody, bringing charges and getting a. conviction and putting someone in jail, those two points are far removed and we. have to see what happens with this.

process going forward. It was. interesting. It was a surprise. It's a. surprise. Well, here's the thing. We did. an episode on Epstein's connection to. the Royals. We knew there was some sort. of investigation. I was not expecting a. full-blown arrest and now potential. charges. I did look up what the Crown. Prosecution Service says about. misconduct in public office. And the. Crown Prosecution Service is that you. know, the main prosecuting arm in uh in. Britain. So, to be clear, we're talking. about arrest under suspicion. There. hasn't been a formal charge yet. We'll.

see if that actually develops. They have. to gather and assess evidence, which. let's talk about what they were might be. searching at the properties. But first, if you talk about a charge, it is a. public officer. So, here I think they. may be able to say that, right? You he. was acting as a official government. envoy. This public officer willfully. neglects to perform their duty and/or. willfully misconducts themselves, that. this amounts to an abuse of public. trust, and there is no reasonable excuse. or justification. Now, what is some of. the evidence that may be used here?

Well, there's an alleged email where. Andrew uh allegedly shares files that. are marked as confidential brief with. Epstein on potential investments in. Southern Afghanistan. By the way, British forces were based there. Now, Andrew allegedly said at the time that. look, I was just seeing comments or. views or ideas that maybe Epstein might. have had to attract interest. I think. that's what it was reported. There's. also this allegation that Andrew. forwarded his official reports on his. visits to Asia that was sent to him by a.

special advisor to Epstein just minutes. after he got them. No forwarding. message, no context. So, when we go back. to what the law, I looked this up. It. says that this public officer had to. have been acting as such. So, it needs. to be distinguished from somebody who is. merely acting while a public officer, but more acting as a public officer. So, in that context is where they allegedly. engaged in misconduct. There has to be a. nexus between the willful neglect, the. breach of duty, the willful misconduct,

and that power, that authority, those. responsibilities. What does willful. mean? According to the Crown Prosecution. Service, willful means deliberately. doing something which is wrong, knowing. it to be wrong, or with reckless. indifference as to whether it is wrong. or not. That this person was aware of. the duty and knew that the way in which. they carried out or neglected that duty. was capable of reaching the seriousness. threshold that amounts to misconduct. So, you don't have to prove that the. defendant themselves came to that view.

All you have to show is that they had. the means available to them to make such. an assessment or that the defendant was. reckless. And in order to establish this. is a serious issue, the seriousness of. the effect, it's whether the conduct. amounted to a serious abuse of the. public's trust. And that not every. willful neglect of duty or misconduct is. going to reach that bar. It is a high. bar of seriousness, but you have to. basically say, and this is I'm reading a. quote, "An affront to the standing of. the public office held, the threshold is.

a high one requiring conduct so far. below acceptable standards as to amount. to an abuse of the public's trust in the. office holder.". And this is going to be determined by a. jury. So, Rich, I I threw a lot at you. I guess the question is I. What are some things you're going to be. looking out for to determine is this a. serious breach of trust, the misconduct. in public office, based on what we're. seeing right now? Well, that was a great summary and good. research of what would be required to.

prove these charges. So, I think this is. an interesting case because to me. willfulness seems kind of obvious. If he. was giving away information that he had. no right to give away to Jeffrey. Epstein, that seems fundamentally. willful. But, the big question here that. the courts will have to ponder before it. even gets to a jury is was this really. in furtherance of his official duties? And, I don't know enough about what his. official duties were at the time as a.

prince and whatever other offices he. held to know if passing on this. information could have arguably been. part of the duty. He's going to say, I. think, this really had nothing to do. with my official duties. I was providing. some information to a friend on his. request that I had access to. I wasn't. trying to negotiate with Epstein on. behalf of the United Kingdom. I wasn't. trying to transact business. I wasn't. representing the crown. I was just.

passing on some data the guy asked for. I did not have any ill intent, etc. And, even though a jury might conclude, you. had no business passing on that. confidential governmental information to. this maniac. Was it part of his official duty? I. think that that to me is the toughest. part of the case. So, I think that's the. easiest part. I think he's he's in a. position where he gets this information. He's handing it over. Um and I or. allegedly handing it over. I guess the.

question is, what was he gaining out of. this? Like, whether even it rises to the. seriousness or whether it rises to the. level of what he would be punished. I. looked up the Crown Prosecution Service. They said some of the things to factor. in is, did the conduct involve the. exploitation or attempted exploitation. of vulnerable people? Did the conduct. have an operational impact that harmed. the public interest or undermined public. trust either in the role held by the. suspect or the relevant public service. or institution? What was the suspect's. motive? Was it personal gain? What was.

the severity of the actual or likely. consequences? Was there a risk of death. or serious injury? How egregious was the. abuse of power? Did the willful. misconduct or breach of a duty have the. the of benefiting the wider public. interest rather than being injurious to. it. So, I guess if you look at a. textbook example, if he gave up like the. location of British forces and he did it. for money and they got killed, that's. like textbook throw the book at him, right? This one I'm curious like what. did he have to gain by it? Who was. harmed by it? I think those are the.

things that I'm looking out for. So, right. So, so this is a financial crime, right? Because it's trade information. It's information about transactions on. behalf of the United Kingdom. That's how. Is that the way you understand it? That's the way I understand it. >> That's the way I understand it. I mean, if you're in a position where you're. getting this material and you're sharing. it and you could say just in and of. itself that's breaching his. responsibilities, his duties. This is. confidential information or sensitive. information. That I think is is as is a.

level. I just don't know It's like an. insider It's like an insider trading. case. Who are you harming? When you give. away secrets of a company so that. someone can make decisions about buying. and selling stock with more information. than others, you're harming the other. stockholders or in this case you're. potentially harming the United Kingdom. itself because you're providing somebody. with secret information that they can. enact trades on. Now, a question I would.

have on either side of this case is did. Jeffrey Epstein use this information? What did he do with it? Did he pass it. on? Did he trade on it? If he traded on. it and made some financial gain, then. that's to the financial detriment of. somebody else, potentially of the United. Kingdom or of others who were involved. in the trading. So, there could be or. the public. So, there very well could be. victims just as there are in insider. trading and other kinds of financial.

fraud cases. I guess the other thing is, too, is whether or not he had. authorization to share this allegedly. sensitive government material. And I. wonder if he'd say, "Look, there was. nothing so confidential that I couldn't. share it, or maybe it was public. knowledge, or it was about to be." That. might be tough, but I think that does go. into whether or not this is a deliberate. breach of official duty. Yeah, in a case. involving disclosure of confidential. information, you're always going to look. at is that information truly. confidential? Does it exist somewhere.

else in the public forum? Was it. obtainable by Jeffrey Epstein from. somebody else? Or was it stale at the. time it was released? What measures did. the government take to protect the. confidentiality of that information? That goes to both whether it was. confidential and the level of Andrew's. misconduct in fanny. If he didn't know. it was a secret, I mean, I don't know. how he would know, but if he didn't know. >> confidential or something like that. Yeah. >> Well, right. You always look, you know, where is the information kept? How is it.

marked? How is it stored? You always. look at stuff like this. So, it's an. interesting case. I mean, I was a little. hard on it on the outset because I think. there are more important issues here. arising from these Epstein files, but. the case itself is interesting from the. perspective of of just a business fraud. case and how you would prosecute. something like that. What I'm about to. say, I want to be clear, I am not making. this comparison on its face, but I.

guarantee you, as this comes up today, you are going to hear the term Al. Capone. I thought of the same thing. You're It's Al Capone. It's Al Capone. I. mean, I mean, seriously, it's like you. couldn't get him on the other stuff. It. was tax-related crimes, right? So, again, I'm sure you're going to hear. that today. Not making the comparison. that Prince Andrew's anywhere in the. realm of Al Capone, but whatever. Anyway, look, there are two addresses. that were reportedly searched by. authorities. You have one in Berkshire, one in Norfolk. He had lived in Windsor.

Royal Lodge in Berkshire earlier this. month. Now he has this new home in. Sandringham, this estate in Norfolk. Two. parts of that is, what do you think. they're looking for in connection with. this alleged crime? And B, I don't know. the whole rules of UK law, but assuming. it's similar to what we have here in the. United States, what happens if they find. something else during the course of. their search that's not related to the. current breach, the alleged breach of. trust?

You ask the best question. So, I'll take. the easier one. The first question is. easier. What they're looking for is. anything with a plug or anything they. can plug plug into something, right? Any. computer, any tablet, any phone, any. external media, any device that might. have data on it or might have evidence. of things that were sent to or received. from Jeffrey Epstein or anybody else or. might show where he kept this kind of. data or if he was harvesting it and. maintaining it in some form. So, they're.

looking for all of that. I mean, I doubt. they're looking for physical printouts. of confidential information. That. doesn't seem very likely. But usually. these days when you bust into a home in. a case like this, you're going to carry. out every computer you can find and hand. it over to people who know how to search. them. Your second question is much. harder. What happens if they carry out a. computer and they find, you know, 10. metric tons of pornography? I don't know. the answer to that. That doesn't seem to.

fit the crime and the elements that you. outlined, which is probably part of the. British government's answer to why are. you prosecuting this potentially, but. you didn't prosecute the other stuff. That's because this particular crime, if. it was committed, is actually a crime if. it's carried out by a public official. And that's why they feel they can go. after it plus the evidence. So, if other. stuff comes out, I don't know. I mean. I I think we know everything we need to.

know about Andrew. already in that regard, but. we'll see. It gets complicated cuz. you're in the United States when you. have a search warrant that is very. specific for what you're looking for, but you discover evidence of other. criminality. It's not like it can just. be ignored. So, I'm curious. I don't. know what else they might find, but. something I had to address. Okay, by the. way If you go in with a search warrant, if you go in with a search warrant and. you find like bodies in the [laughter]. house. >> Yeah, yeah, I mean it's not like. >> that. Yeah, it's not like they're like,

"Well, it wasn't in the search warrant. Uh we're just going to ignore it." Um. let me ask you this. You saw the. statement from the king, okay? Basically, it's like, "Andrew, you're on. your own, right?" Yeah, and I think. people are going to think about this. king and the way he's handled relations. now with one of his sons and one of his. brothers, and that's going to be part of. his legacy, but I actually thought this. particular statement by the king was. appropriate. He should stay out of it. Government officials should stay out of.

it. I've been critical in the United. States about government officials piping. up too much during prosecution. So, I. think the king saying this is going to. be carried out like any other criminal. matter, and I'm not going to say. anything more about it, and my family is. going to go about doing our royal. duties. I actually think that's probably. exactly right. Before I let you go, this. is the big part. Is this going to spark. the United States Department of Justice. or any, you know, US Attorney's Office.

to do something, right? Because people. will say, "Look at the UK. They're going. after the highest of the high. How come. we're not seeing an investigation or. criminal charges against anybody here in. the United States?" Now, on one hand, I've talked about this before. Based on. case summaries and internal memos in the. Epstein files, they have said there was. no videos or photographs of other people. abusing young girls other than Epstein. and Maxwell, but could there be an. investigation into something else that's. not related to sex crimes? And the. problem I see is I wonder if this will.

spark the DOJ basically on public. pressure to do something more. I don't. know if there's anything more, but also. we can't forget that it was last summer. when the DOJ and the FBI released a memo. saying quote, "We did not uncover. evidence that could predicate an. investigation against uncharged third. parties." So, essentially they'd have to. go back on that statement unless they. say, "Hey, that was with respect to sex. crimes. There might be something else to. look at here." I don't know. Got to ask.

you. Yeah, I I think that. the fact that this is happening in the. UK. Well, first of all, he's not a. public official anymore. He's an. ex-former official. So, this would be to. me more like if they went ahead and. prosecuted Bill Clinton. He's an. ex-president. He's not in power. I mean, he holds some influence, but he's not in. power. And so, that would be the analogy. to me, not going after people who are. currently in power. I think there's very.

little chance that DOJ, which is the. legal department now of the people in. power, would go after the people in. power. That's just not the way it's set. up. That's not what DOJ has become. I. don't see any way that changes unless. down the road there's a change in who's. in charge of DOJ. The only way to change. what DOJ does is to change who's in. charge. And you know, you people will. have a chance to do that at the ballot. box in some manner this year, and then.

they'll have another chance in a couple. of years. And that's the only thing. I. don't think what happens in England is. going to I mean, it'll be the subject. for a lot of discussion like the one. we're having, but it's not going to. amount to a change in the way business. is done here. Rich Schoenstein, thanks. so much for coming on and jumping on so. quickly to do this breaking news. Really. appreciate it. My pleasure. We'll keep. an eye on this one, huh? Absolutely. 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.

Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your. podcast. You can also follow us on NBC's. [music] Peacock. We have Sidebar. episodes up there, too. If you want to. follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation. show Jesse Weber LIVE, Monday through. Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. [music] I'll. see you next time, everybody.