The oath keepers. And welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me. A lot going on. I know in the courtroom and thanks for taking the time to step out and give us an update. How in your assessment is this trial going? And where is it at what stage are we at right now? Yeah, let me just say, first of all, that it's a pleasure to be on the podcast today. As you know, the local court rules prohibit me from discussing the evidence that's in the case that we have to be careful not to run astray of violating the local court rules. But there are many things I can tell you. First of all, I can say that we think the trial is going well. That we have an outstanding team of attorneys working on this case. I'm representing Stewart roads along with Bill linder with Phil lender and James Lee bright from Dallas, Texas, to outstanding lawyers, we have the other defendants, Kelly maggs has Stanley Woodward and Julie Halle from Washington, D.C., Ken harrelson, has Brad guy from New Jersey. Jessica Watkins has a Jonathan Chris from Pennsylvania and mister Thomas Caldwell has bay Fisher from Maryland. So we have a lot of outstanding attorneys on this case and we have a great camaraderie and rapport with each other. So I just think we have an outstanding team in this trial on behalf of the defense. Let's talk about before we talk about the evidence or at least specifically Stuart roads. Let's talk about the concern that so many of us have that we are in an environment where there is intense political bias against these defendants. I mean, they're entitled to a jury of their peers. It's obviously the judge's job to make sure that that's the case, but we have an Obama judge Amit meta. By and large these judges have been very reluctant to say anything other than, yeah, we've been in D.C. a long time. These jurors are wonderful. My question is, do you feel confident even with a D.C. jury and a kind of progressive political establishment that you can get a fair trial? Well, that's a good question. And obviously, we won't know the answer to that until the trial is over. But let me just say this, we spent three days selecting the jury two weeks ago. And we went through an enormous amount of questions to the potential jurors. The jury pool was a large pool, the judge called in many more potential jars than normal and there were a lot of jurors, a lot of individuals on the jury panel that were excused because of cause. And so these were people who truthfully said, I don't think I can render a fair verdict. I don't think I can be fair in this situation. And you know, all during that process, my prayer was that people would just tell the truth. If they were so convinced about their views of January 6th and what these defendants were involved in, that they could not be fair, would just tell the truth. And you know, I think in large measure, most of them did that. And so, you know, I'm optimistic that we have a good jury. I'm an optimist by nature, and I'm just going to say that I think that the judge did a good job in this case. I mean, certainly, you know, there were decisions that he's made that we disagreed with, but overall, I'm hopeful that we have a good jury listening to the evidence in this case.