Raunchy Texts EXPOSED in MIT Scientist’s Sex Scandal

His. reference to being attacked at 2:00 a.m. is that instance where you went into his. room when he was already in bed and had. sex with objection. >> There is a legal case that just wrapped. up. Well, at least for now, with a. massive verdict and it has now got. [music] a lot of people online talking. A former MIT professor was accused of. sexual misconduct by a younger female. colleague, but it turns out jury didn't. buy it. And when you read some of the. communications in this case, this is why.

it gets so complicated. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. >> I lost everything. There was nothing. left of my normal life. Nothing. >> That's David Sabatini speaking to Boston. 25 News. Now, I'll be completely honest. with you, like I always am. I'm always. honest with you. I didn't know who this. was. I didn't know about this legal case. until the verdict came down and there. was this bombshell Daily Mail expose on.

In fact, a lot of different outlets have. been talking about it. But the evidence. in this case, the evidence showing. arguably false claims made against him. and I knew I saw this and I knew we had. to talk about it because I'm going to. tell you right now it is getting a lot. of attention online aside from so many. people actually addressing it, giving. their thoughts. You have Elon Musk, you. have Bill Aman, online commentators, podcasters, everybody has an opinion. So. many people are talking about this case, which by the way doesn't involve. celebrities, just two private.

individuals. When do you see this? Why. are you seeing that? What does it mean. for these kinds of legal cases moving. forward? That's an interesting question. So, you have this former prominent MIT. biology professor, studied cellular. biology, neurodeenerative diseases, aging, cancer, and he just won a $6. million defamation lawsuit over sexual. misconduct allegations that were made. against him by a colleague. And this. verdict completely flipped what many may.

have thought this was all about. regarding David Sabatini. This guy's. life was ruined back in 2021. He was. forced out of his job at the Whitehead. Institute, this research lab, a position. that he apparently held for 24 years. This was after he was accused of sexual. harassment by a younger colleague, Kristen Canouse. And she alleged that. after meeting him in 2012, he coerced. her into a sexual relationship which. began in 2018 and ended in 2019. There. was an allegation that he created a.

sexualized environment at this research. lab. Sabatini ended up losing his. position at Whitehead. He was under. investigation at MIT. As the Daily Mail. explained, Canals became a symbol of the. hashtagmeto movement. This is with. Sabatini's colleagues sided with her. against him. He became an outcast. His. name was tarnished. He was booed at. events. His name was reportedly removed. from scientific papers. MIT recommended. stripping him of his tenur status. He.

ended up resigning there, by the way. and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. got rid of him. And I mentioned how. Whitehead Institute kicked him out. 2022. he had to withdraw from being considered. for a position at NYU's Grossman School. of Medicine because of all of these. protests from student and faculty. His. marriage ended. He moved to Prague in. 2023. He was hired by the Institute of. Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry out. there. Actually opened a Boston area. branch. But the bottom line is he moved. He had to start a whole new life. And in. terms of his work at MIT, basically said. it was compromised. said his lab work on.

battling diseases is gone. It was lost. Got so bad that Sabatini reportedly. tried to kill himself. But Sabatini. always denied the allegations. Said. everything was consensual and he took. this fight to the end. He filed a. lawsuit against Dr. Canals for. defamation and torchious interference. That's with you're interfering with. certain career or business prospects or. deals. She filed a counter claim. She. alleged sexual harassment and then five.

years later a Suffach County jury sided. with him. Actually I have the verdict. form. Okay. So to the following. questions like did Sabatini prove. defamation by Canals? Did he prove that. Canals tortiously interfered with. contractual relations? Any prospective. advantageous relationships? To all those. questions, the jury voted yes. You see. them mark it off. And they said no with. respect to her claims of quidd proquo. sexual harassment. and creating a. sexually hostile work environment and.

retaliation. It appears they did not. believe her and as the Daily Mail. explains, she is seen as weaponizing. false allegations against this prominent. scientist and that this would be a. repudiation. Now, the question is why? Why do you have this outcome? It is the. evidence that came out during the course. of this case that we got to talk about. Okay? For example, look at this. deposition that was obtained by Boston. 25. >> His. reference to being attacked at 2 am is.

that instance where you went into his. room when he was already in bed and had. sex with him. >> You came back from partying, right? >> I assume that's what he's referring to. >> Then you write, "In hindsight, it was. quite aggressive.". Um, [snorts]. slash he too. What did that mean? Again, I was I think I was making a joke about. the fact that. I was more forward in that encounter.

that I was stopping by his room in. contrast to, you know, up until this. point, he was always coming to my. apartment. >> As I mentioned before, the Daily Mail. did a full expose on this and I I think. it deserves exploring on top of the. other media reports about this. But in. terms of her text messages, highly. problematic for her case. One that is. getting quite a bit of attention is. where she writes to Sabatini at that. time that she wanted to feel like quote. she had been gang raped when that.

message was read to her to explain. Canals claimed it was about wanting to. feel muscle soreness after doing squats. at the gym. And in the end, the. narrative that it seems the jury sided. with was that it was Canals who pursued. Sabatini, not the other way around. This. was evidenced by messages wanting to. meet up, including one at 1:30 a.m. And. in the end, she admitted she had. aggressively gone after him for sex and. even look for rougher sex. And according. to Sabatini, it was only when he wanted. to date someone else, that she took her.

revenge, that she tried to go after him. and tried to ruin his life. There was. another text, one apparently to a. friend, where she said her intent was to. get him quote, Weinsteined out of. science. There was another message. reading, I think he will get fired. bleeping Weinstein his ass. And there. were more messages that came out where. the argument was, this looks like her. celebrating his downfall. And then there. were her therapy notes that were. submitted into evidence at trial. For. instance, there was one that read, quote, "My pursuit of obtaining an.

unavailable man is the ultimate. validation of my perfection." So Fox. News and Boston 25, they also. highlighted other messages where Canals. wrote that she would quote fixate on how. I'm being held as a backup and competed. against other women. How that. retaliatory campaign against him she. called quote covert operation dethrone. Boston 25 reporting that she joked about. buying quote a Lambo if she won a. settlement. Actually, even reading his. initial complaint raised a lot of. questions because Sabatini in this.

complaint talks about a sham. investigation that was conducted by. Whitehead and that there were complaints. that the lawyers for Whitehead looking. into this, they weren't listening to the. full story. They weren't listening to. the truth. And then the complaint says. this, quote, "So thin was the evidence. against Dr. Sabatini that even the. Whiteheads lawyers were obligated to. acknowledge, quote, Sabatini focuses on. people's science, not their gender." and. quote does not discriminate based on. gender in terms of whom he supports. As. the report also acknowledged, we did not.

find any evidence that Sabatini actually. retaliated against or punished any. person for speaking out against him or. raising concerns outside the lab. But in. the end, look, this investigation found. that Sabatini breached the institution's. sexual relationship policy, fostered a. sexualized work environment, attempted. to interfere with the investigation. He. adamantly denies those claims. But going. back to Canals, Dr. Canals, there are. sections in this complaint where he. referenced additional behavior and.

communications by Canals that again were. problematic to her case. Quote, as set. forth in more detail below, what Dr. Canals told investigators Whitehead and. Dr. Leman about her relationship with. Dr. Sabatini after it had ended was. false. In particular, Dr. Cannouse did. not tell the truth when she reported. that the sexual relationship between. herself and Dr. Sabatini was not. consensual. In a conversation in May. 2018, shortly after the sexual. relationship began, Dr. Canals set quote. ground rules for the relationship that.

Dr. Sabatini had to follow. Dr. Canals. made it clear that she did not want the. relationship to be exclusive, that she. had other sexual partners and expected. Dr. Sabatini to accept that, and that. the relationship needed to be kept. confidential. Dr. Sabatini was also. explicit with Dr. Canals that he was not. in a position to pursue a long-term or. committed relationship with her. Dr. Sabatini was separated from his wife and. in the process of ending his marriage. Despite the term she dictated for the. relationship, when Dr. Sabatini ended.

their casual sexual relationship to. explore a relationship with another. woman in Europe, Dr. Canals continued to. pursue him for a long-term sexual. relationship. When it became clear in. late summer of 2020 that Dr. Dr. Sabatini remained in a relationship with. another woman. Dr. Canals became. determined to destroy Dr. Sabatini. Indeed, Dr. Canals told Dr. Sabatini. that she was engaged in non-exclusive. sexual relationships during the time she. was also with Dr. Sabatini, including. someone she referred to as her.

anesthesiologist. bleet buddy, and others she described as. her finance bros. He goes on to say, "Although the sexual component of their. relationship was only sporadic, Dr. Sabatini and Dr. Canals socialized. together regularly as close friends. And. towards the end of December 2019, Dr. Canals formally declared to him that she. wanted to be his quote life partner, but. that she did not need to get married or. have children." In response, Dr. Sabatini told her that he was interested. in exploring a relationship with someone. else who lived in Europe. Text messages.

between Dr. Canals and Dr. Sabatini. after this disclosure were almost all. friendly but clearly indicated Dr. Canow's interest in Dr. Sabatini as a. long-term romantic partner. Both. scientific and personal issues were. discussed on January 13th, 2020. Dr. Canow texted Dr. Sabatini that quote, "I'm left wondering whether you would. put in the same amount of effort for me. and not certain there would be a point. when you care enough about a. relationship to fight for it and give it. the amount of effort I would want and. deserve to be happy." Two days after.

this exchange, when Dr. Sabatini had not. responded to several texts from Dr. Canals, she texted him that she gets. quote anxious when I don't hear back. from you. She expressed concern that his. failure to respond was evidence to this. growing feeling that you don't care. about me the way that I care about you. This text again shows Dr. Canals. pursuing a relationship with Dr. Sabatini after he made it clear that he. was not interested in a continued. relationship. In later texts, Dr. Canals. continued to press the relationship with. Dr. Sabatini even challenging him as to.

whether he has the same quote. intellectual ambition connection with. the woman in Europe that Dr. Canals. claimed she and Dr. Sabatini had. It. goes on to say Dr. Sabatini wrote to Dr. Canals to quote please stop sending him. texts. In another text, Dr. Canals. admitted that she did not want to quote. keep bothering Dr. Sabatini, but that. his quote need for space and exploration. was difficult for her to handle. And. then there's this section. A few days. after their sexual relationship began, Dr. Canals commented to Dr. Sabatini in.

an email, quote, "If I am ever. sufficiently established and rich, we. can hire a shared admin to manage and. book all domestic and international. whiskey endeavors, broadly classified as. scientific inquiry." Goes on to say, "The investigation also minimized. instances where Dr. Canals initiated. sexual banner with Dr. Sabatini in. finding that Dr. Dr. Sabatini was the. sexual harasser and attributed such. conduct by Dr. Canals to her attempts to. please him by mimicking his behavior. This narrative was false. Dr. Canals not.

infrequently made sexual, genderbased, or dirty comments to Dr. Sabatini by. text. In one exchange, she suggested. quote testicle toss or cornhole as games. for the Whitehead. She wrote such. comments to others including a visiting. posttock in the Sabatini lab to whom she. commented that she had a need to quote. four more let's just say private word. for male genitalia in my life and sent. him pictures of wallpaper decorated with.

bleep. Despite this the investigators. did not make any finding that Dr. Canals. had violated the whitehead's sexual. harassment policy on January 12th 2020. for example Dr. Canals, who is a red. head, sent completely out of the blue. the following image to Dr. Sabatini by. text along with the statement, quote, "Informative data, redheads serving as. the primary example of danger zone." And. it appears to be alongside this image of. a chart called universal hot crazy. matrix. There's one axis that's the.

crazy axis. The other is the hot axis. One section reads, "Danger zone, redheads, strippers, girls named. Tiffany, hairdressers with a silhouetted. image of a woman with a knife." Now, Canals tried to fight back against all. this. In fact, reading from a motion to. dismiss that her team filed in this. case. I just want to read it. Gives you. an idea about it. It says, quote, "This. case is about pliff Dr. Sabatini, MD, PhD, who is by his own account a. brilliant scientist who has served as.

kingmaker for those on whom he showers. favor. It is about when an in-depth. investigation by two prestigious. institutions revealed a toxic and. sexually charged work environment in the. lab he led that undermined numbers of. women and men that work there. A. retaliatory environment he perpetuated. where negative consequences were. threatened to anyone who dared to. challenge him and a prohibited and. coercive sexual relationship with a. graduate student and fellow he mentored. and the maintaining of that relationship. in secret and while he maintained his.

power over her. And it is about. Sabatini's rage when despite this some. people decided not to keep his secrets. and he was called to account as a. result. Unable to take responsibility. for his own misconduct, Sabatini chose. to walk away from a tenure position at. one of the country's most prestigious. universities without making his case to. a body of his peers. He decided instead. to lash out against those he would blame. for his misfortunes, filing this. litigation and providing the public with. granular details of his own misdeeds and. evidence of his retaliation. Now, as I.

said, this went to trial. The jury ruled. in favor of Sabatini, and Canals's legal. team is challenging that verdict. According to Fox News, her attorney. believes that this decision sends the. wrong message that it's going to deter. female scientists from reporting. workplace misconduct. Her attorney, Ellen Zucker, told Fox News Digital, quote, "When someone can get sued for. having spoken out, that kills the. willingness of anyone to participate in. an investigation." But Sabatini's. attorney, Lisa G. Arowwood countered. that, telling the outlet, quote, "The.

jury verdict in this case should have no. impact on women who truly have been. harassed or abused and decide to report. the misconduct. What the jury found. here, based on the contemporaneous. documents written by Dr. Canals herself, was that no harassment ever occurred and. that her claims of harassment and rape. were false and defamatory. This jury. verdict, therefore, has no bearing on. people who report truthfully." By the. way, a judge had previously dismissed. Sabatini's claims against Whitehead and. the president of the Whitehead. Institute. His lawyer told the media. that their plans to appeal that summary.

judgement order dismissing those claims. So, we'll see where that goes. But, and. it's also being reported that Dr. Canals. is still employed at MIT. In fact, an. MIT spokesperson said, quote, "The board. of directors of Whitehead Institute has. full confidence in the leadership of. director Ruth Layman. The institute's. workplace policies and the process that. included the 2021 investigation into. Sabatini's lab, which was conducted by. an independent law firm. Whitehead. Institute was not a party to the lawsuit. between David Sabatini and Kristen. Canals, in which a jury verdict was. announced October 16th, 2026. All claims.

made by Sabatini against Whitehead have. previously been dismissed by the court. Now, legally, I don't believe that the. jury's findings have any impact on or. requirement for the findings of. Whitehead's own investigation. I want to. explore that a little bit more, but. they're under no like an obligation to. right now pay him or hire him back or. anything like that. But I think the. reason that this case is so interesting. and it's getting so much attention is. that it represents the other side of. these cases and allegations. Look, you. know, we cover a lot of sexual.

misconduct cases and assault cases, and. our understanding of those who have been. victimized or allegedly victimized has. changed over the years. Right? We've now. learned that people who stay in touch. with the person they say abused them or. mistreated them or harassed them or. continuing to text them or saying they. love them doesn't automatically mean. that they're liars, it doesn't. automatically mean that they aren't. telling the truth about what happened. We've learned through a number of cases. and juries believe this too that there.

can be a host of reasons why that might. occur. Psychological, emotional, power. dynamics, a lot of that. But at the same. time, those communications, that. behavior, those are facts for a jury to. consider. They do have to be taken into. consideration and they go to. credibility. having the same. conversation right now about the. evidence in the Cornell 7 investigation, Jane Doe's account. But in this case, the jury did not appear to believe this. accuser at all. And you don't always see.

that. It can be quite rare. And I want. to talk about why this happened. So, I. was thinking, who should we talk to. about this? And I was like, we got to. talk to Ben Chu, represented Johnny Depp. in that infamous defamation trial. Um, because there's so many different. components about this. And Ben, thank. you so much for coming on. Look, this is. an interesting case from a number of. different angles because first of all, it's not even celebrities. It's two. private individuals. Never heard of them. before, right? And you see this and. you're seeing the reaction to it and we.

were just talking before we came on. Do. you think there's going to be big. implications from this? What is the. lesson from a case like this? Because to. me, when I look at it, if they didn't. have the the communications, if they. didn't have the text messages, I think. this might have been a different. verdict. >> Jesse, uh, happy Friday. Good to be with. you again. I think it's a fascinating. story and case, and I agree with you. 100%. I think the text messages are. damning, and as you know, uh, when you.

can use someone's own words against. them, I think they're damning. There's. not much she can say. To me, the lesson. of this case, the lesson of Depurd, the. lesson of the Duke Lacrosse case, the. lesson of the Rolling Stone article of. rape on campus is let the process play. out. I mean, we are Americans. Let there. be due process before we render our. verdict. And in in this case and in. these other cases, institutions time. after time have just assumed the truth.

of the allegations. And in this case, the plainif was fired from his job and. at a prestigious university and denied a. job at another university solely based. on allegations that turned out to be, according to the jury, which was mostly. women, false. >> Why do you think they decided that way? Because I've talked about this before. and and I'll mention this again. You can. have situations where people claim that. they were victimized or they were abused. or they mistreated and yet they stay in.

contact with the person uh who allegedly. inflicted this upon them or write loving. messages or stay in touch with them and. it's you know there's power imbalance, there's psychological components, there's emotional components, but why. did that not work here? Why was this a. resounding verdict against Dr. Kenos? Such a great question. And as you say, you can have on behalf of the victim, you can have experts who will credibly. explain why a victim may in fact stay in.

touch, appear loving. All of that can be. explained and and it often works here. As you said, there were damning texts. about her trying to Weinstein him or. overthrow him and um I will get what I. want in which she is playing the part of. the aggressor, the vengeful aggressor, not the victim. And I think those, as. you said, I think those did her in with. the jury. Interesting again that the.

jury was about evenly split between men. and women, but a slight majority to. women. I think it's it's not bad to have. women on these cases. So, I I I think. that's a good composition of the of the. jury to have, you know, even handed. there. >> What do you say to the concern that was. raised by her attorney and maybe those. out there say this is going to stop. people from coming forward? This is. going to stop um young women in any. workforce from coming forward speaking. out about what they are going through.

Um, do you think this is going to have a. chilling effect or do you take the. position of his lawyer who basically is. like, "No, if you have legitimate. claims, you have legitimate claims. It's. not going to stop people from coming. forward if they. >> I don't think I I'm sorry. I I don't. think it has a chilling effect at all. I. I think I I would agree strongly with. his lawyer. That was, you know, our. position, you know, and Deputy Heard. that u people who are victimized should. come forward and many have. We've seen. it uh since, you know, before and and. since that trial. And if you're not.

telling the truth, then then you. shouldn't prevail. I mean, again, I. think it goes back to the point about. due process. As bad it is to be a sexual. predator, it's also equally bad or. almost as bad as to falsely accuse. someone of being a sexual predator. So, I think we just have to take these cases. as they come and judge them on the. merits without any predisposition as to, oh, a man is telling the truth or a. woman telling the truth. Let's look at. the facts. And I think that's what the.

jury did here. >> I wanted to ask you about the the award. here, right? When you look at uh for. example, if you look at the jury verdict. form, state the total amount of money. that will fully and fairly compensate. Dr. Sabatini for the harm you found 6. million. How do they come up with that. number? What did you make of those. numbers? >> The numbers sound about right. I mean. there are different ways of calculating. damages in defamation cases. Uh there's. one the standard way which you would.

take um you that the actual damages the. opportunities lost. You look at his he's. in his 50s. So you look at the likely uh. time span of his career and what it. would have been. but for these uh. allegedly false statements and then you. deduct his life expenses. You come up. with that number there. Um we often use. in our defamation cases, you hire an. expert to see what it would cost to.

restore that person's reputation. And. those numbers can be quite high. uh you hire an expert who can show how. far the allegedly false statement was. dispersed. They can do surveys. U again. it's a little different as you pointed. out when you're talking about people who. are celebrities or people who are not. But even in a case here where you're. talking about a a Whitehead Institute. MIT professor, you know, this this.

defamation was disseminated far and wide. in a fairly limited universe. So there. are only so many jobs for professors, you know, esoteric professors. So his. career was pretty much shot by this kind. of allegation. So the $6 million number. does not surprise me. That sounds about. right. The jury has a lot of discretion. Then you get to the issue of what she. can afford. >> Yeah. I mean, what can she pay? How. would that work? >> Yeah. I mean, you you can talk about,

you know, getting eight figure. judgments, but it it's only as good as. as what she might have in terms of. insurance and her personal assets. So, I. don't know really what benefit it would. do him to have secured a much higher. judgment than that because she can only. pay so much. And I I would suspect, I. don't know this, but I suspect at some. point there would be a settlement. Um. because I think it's unlikely. I I'm not. aware of her the status of her wealth.

that she's a 38-year-old professor. academic in her own right. Unless she. has family money, then I doubt she's got. $6 million to pay. >> So his claims against the institute and. against the president, those were. initially dismissed. I read that his. lawyer is going to try to appeal that. decision that a summary of judgment. decision to dismiss him. First of all, that that verdict, it sends a statement. more than even trying to get the money. It sends a statement in a way. I'm I'm. sure it feels like vindication for him. and it makes a statement out there. But.

also, it's if you're going to go after. the money, you go after white, you go. after the institute. And I don't know. what his success is going to be to. reinstitute those claims. >> Well, absolutely. And I'm surprised. I. mean, I'm not familiar with those. papers, but I'm surprised that they. would have been disied. If you remember. in the Duke Lacrosse case, all of the uh. falsely accused fraternity members, the. three who were actually accused of rape, and then the other team members, they. all sued Duke University and they. settled. So Duke, Duke, I don't know.

what the terms of the settlement were, but they were, I believe, substantial. settlement. So th those would be MIT and. and the institute, I would think, would. be the deep pockets here. And I would. think there there may well be a case of. of breach of contract uh and negligence. there. I mean relying on these. allegations before there had been. adjudication. It goes back to the point. about due process. Universities of all. institutions should understand the way.

our constitution works and shouldn't. deprive someone of a job and their. livelihood before there had been some. adjudication on the merits as to whether. he was guilty of these horrible. accusations. >> But they're not under a legal obligation. to apologize or to hire him back or give. him money. I mean, just because there's. a verdict in this civil lawsuit, they. could still stand by their own. investigation, their own internal. policies, and say despite what the jury. found there on those torsious.

interference and defamation claims, which are very specific, we believe. based on our own internal investigation, you know, that he did this, that he. created a sexualized environment, that. he interfered with the investigation. They could still believe that, right? Because they're not, you know, they was. the statement they're not parties to. this verdict. Yeah, that's a that's a. great point, Jesse. I mean, it the mere. fact of having even a consensual. relationship, which is what the jury. appeared to find, could still be a. violation of the institute's practices,

in which case, as you suggest, they. would be well within their rights to uh. dismiss him or not, in the case of of. NYU, not to engage him. It's a good. point because they could argue that the. very purpose of that policy is to avoid. situations like this where there's been. a bad breakup and inevitable not. inevitably but there's there's a. possibility that the university gets. dragged into a he said she said and.

that's you know that that's one of the. reasons there the non fraternization. policy. So I think that's an excellent. point. >> What about her grounds for an appeal? Obviously, she can appeal this. Um, I go. back to something she did in her motion. to dismiss. Um, you know, when it came. to the defamation claim or the torsious. interference claim, she said that, uh, he didn't articulate a viable claim. She. said that his emotional distress claim. had to fail. Um, that her conduct is. privileged such that all counts have to.

be dismissed. Now, that was a motion to. dismiss, but what do you think the way. she would appeal this and whether or not. it would be successful? But I know you. don't know the ins and outs of every. aspect of this case, but generally. speaking, what could be ways she could. be successful in getting an overturning. of this verdict? >> Well, as you know, there's so many. constitutional defenses and defamation. cases and argument about this is an. opinion. It's not a statement of fact. So, there are myriad constitutional. issues that an appellet court may want. to dig its teeth into. emotional.

distress claims are inherently difficult. because the standard is is really high. in some jurisdictions. And I think you. have also the many judgment calls that. the court has to make during a trial. >> as to admit admitting certain certain. evidence. So there are probably. many potential grounds for appeal and. and the appellant only has to strike pay. dirt on one or two of them to get a new. trial or to get a reversal outright. And.

that's that goes back to the point where. I think it might behoove one or both of. the parties to settle this because it's. going to be very expensive. I suspect. the plaintiff's main goal in suing her. was the one you suggest which is. vindication. Where do I go to get my. reputation back? He can now point to the. verdict as vindication. >> Do you think it'll work? Do you think. that a successful verdict changes p the. public perception? >> I I think it does. Now, it but it it.

it's interesting because then it begs. the question that you raised about the. institutions. If you were, you know, one. of the relatively few people who would. be hiring a professor in this particular. expertise, would you want somebody who. is a hot potato as you know in the sense. of it's going to hiring him would. engender a fair amount of controversy. and is it worth it? So I don't, you. know, query whether he can get a similar. job ever again in this small universe.

because even if he's been vindicated in. terms of not being sexually abusive, he. still was engaged in what he conceds was. a consensual sexual relationship with a. colleague. And and as I understand his. testimony, he told her he was breaking. it off to have another sexual. relationship with a colleague. So, if. that's the case, then maybe not someone. you want to hire. >> Listen, Ben, this is an interesting. case. I really wanted you on get your.

perspective on it and [music] obviously. a lot of people talking about it. So, thank you so much for taking this time, sir. Good seeing you. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. [music] I'm Jesse. Weber. We'll speak to you next time.