6 Burst results for "Office Of Legal Counsel"
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
"office legal counsel" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder
"That's it. I'm not going to do. I mean but i i. It's hard. I think for people around the outside to sort of say like how is it that you were able to look at this. And what were the reasons. Why other senators. Who i imagine there were some at least who had some sensitivity to this. Was it just purely like from a political standpoint. If i don't do this. I'm not back here in two thousand and three i think probably what First of all. I would say twenty years later and certainly even ten years after i it was fine to name names in. History is more important than protecting people's feelings at this point and So what i can tell you is that people would say would have said to me at the time while you don't. You're not up for reelection. Two thousand four and you come from a different kind of state centered cetera. You're not running for president but you know the truth is is that i heard. Every one of those presidential candidates get up and close carcass and say this is not a good idea we should not be going into this war and then the political pitch was made by the leader others saying what will we be able to do to stop there were. They're doing if we lose the majority right. Also so that became the pitch this sort of pragmatic and then you have this tragedy of good people in arab perfectly. They are good people. Some of them People were very appropriate presidential candidates who managed to accept that notion out of political fear after saying those words in croke close caucus walked onto. The floor voted for this war. That set so many of our people to their doom in iraq and that was to me was one of the saddest things i never seen in politics to. Somebody would do this. The guy that really had a terrible time was paul. Wellstone was writhing over this. He was saying you know i. I understand the argument that we need to vote for it in. It was a very hard time you got in front of the caucus and he thought he loses reelection if he voted For a against the war in the end he did vote against the war. And last time i ever saw paul was i was coming to the senate chamber and he was leaving the senate chamber a few days before he was killed in plane crash and As i said. Paul you're up by nine points of the pulse you're gonna win. And he got this big smile on his face like you knew he had done the right thing and he was going to win. That's the last time i ever saw it. Does the rain thing. What from and i wanna talk about some of the lessons that that that that clearly weren't learned In many respects but when you look back at the patriot act. Or i mean obviously we just literally finished a twenty year war in afghanistan and You know the the what we did in iraq is going to resonate for generations and generations when when you look back in the wake of nine eleven in terms of like the the most problematic Things that were done by our government and the legacy that they will have. I mean you know. I mean i guess. The question is on some level like their stuff that we can't put the toothpaste back into the tube as it were on a lot of these things. What are those things that are the most sort of toxic. I guess toothpaste. That's out of those tubes. Well y would be of course is idea military authority in the part on part of the president. That's on completely limited. This idea that article two of constitutionalism president to do whatever he wants. And that the idea of the congress's supposed to declare war is sort of a dead letter that is has gotten worse and worse throughout the twentieth century in the first part of the twenty first century and this made it even worse with john. You over the office of legal counsel writing opinions. It really had no basis in constitutional law so this was a very bad period for this for congress was very docile did not stand up for authorities under the constitution under article one to to be involved in decisions about whether declared war whether to get out of a war and only now recently are some groups. Bipartisan senators led by people like tim. Kaine virginia trying to come together. Reasserted congressional forty this year. They're talking about undoing. The authorization for use of military force vis-a-vis iraq and making some progress less so with regard to the afghanistan authority which needs to be repealed and the same thing goes for the patriot where they made some changes A couple years ago were able to get a couple of things modified but basically those authorities for the government to simply go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court which is a secret court and asked to see personal records of people really haven't been changed. And and so these legacies continuing intimidators things going on one is whenever you have a crisis. There's gonna be some overreact. Doesn't make it right. you have to guard against it. And and and mistakes have been made in that regard for example famous internment of japanese german of deaths. Japanese-americans decorum case. That's one thing. The second thing that is even more sinister is the conscious decision to exploit the moment to exploit the opportunity to get something else to get more cracking down on people's civil liberties and that's the danger posed january six. I wrote a piece for the wall street. Journal said look. We have to have accountability for these people. That did this thing on january. Six twenty twenty one but let's not create authorities that are used against black lives matter. People are protesting. Need the the the the pipeline. Which is what has happened too often so you. This is a moment of vigilance because people will take this opportunity cynically to further restrict people's freedoms further enhance executive power over the power. And even if they're not aware that they're doing right. I mean you're you're setting up an apparatus that in many instances you know kerr you never know who could be the next president. Donald trump. i think we have enough. Love lessons like what was done with using the hallway insecurity by trump in portland and others to see that there are plenty of people. Were doing it conscious as well as people that are doing it in good faith but really there is a way to be more careful about the way. These things are written and and interpret. Were you what. What was your sense of the obama presidency in terms of some of these things. I mean during the obama presidency. I mean you you mentioned john. You who was in the office legal counsel wrote many of the documents that basically argued for the authority for president to do all sorts of things from tortured to other unilateral measures. During the obama years. We had things like the a the establishment sort of like bringing in from the cold almost the legal authority to assassinate american citizens. We have on wall walkie Has one. I think there were others. There was a. I think a tuesday meeting when they were looking at targets We still have a secretive..
The Lawfare Podcast
"office legal counsel" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"This question of if the president believes that the president is getting tea leaves as a word that the supreme court is going to strike down. But he's going to do but the supreme court has not said so and there is not controlling evidence or controlling precedent on point. What should the president do. Right is the president's job to predict what the supreme court will do and say you know if there's a fifty percent plus probability that the supreme court will say that. What i'm doing is illegal. I cannot do that. Or is the role. The president to say look as long as there is a legally available option. That is not foreclosed by existing precedent and existing controlling law. Even if i think i probably gonna lose. Look it's still worth it for me to try this out because i in my article two responsibilities. Think that what i'm doing is actually okay and look at the supreme court wants to officially tell me it's not we'll deal with that. I think this is actually a really tricky question. It's not obvious that there's a blanket right or wrong answer. I think there's probably a point at which you know. Even president that thinks supreme court is wrong has to accept that he's probably going to lose them therefore he probably shouldn't do it but this is a matter of degree What's what's frustrating in particular about this case is because the administration has been talking so many sides of it's mouth about what it actually thinks the law is. We can't even get to this issue. So i just wanna take issue with two things that y'all said the first is both of you said some version of the president said that he didn't think he what he was doing was lawful and that was a natural interpretation of the president's words especially in light of what the press secretary and gene sperling said before technically not what he said the president. I don't believe binds lawyer. Maybe he is but he is okay. He is so he gave a whole bunch of rambling remarks and but he never said those words he said he did say that the court has already ruled on the present eviction moratorium but they were of course issuing a new era when that they thought and that was wrong by the way that's an inaccurate statement of what the court said in any event i'm not going to parse his really truly incoherent words but he didn't actually say what i'm doing is illegal but i'm gonna do it anyway. That was the natural interpretation of it. That's the way people did interpret it. It's not what he said as for the question about the standard for the justice department defending executive action via executive order in court. The justice department is a legal matter has never said that we're going to base our litigation position on a prediction of whether we're winner lose and they often defend things that they think. There's a good chance to believe that they will lose and they think that they should make the best arguments a lot. The court aside the s g and the litigation branches earn a much different posture from when the office legal counsel is giving advice for as a basis presidential action. That's not going to be reviewed in court as the first point. The second point is so. I think it was easily available for them. Consistent with justice department traditions to defend the new narrower moratorium there was simply no ruling to the contrary moreover. I think it's a mistake to allow the supreme court without a reason decision on the shadow. Docket where there were very little where there was diminished briefing. There was no oral argument. Very little america's participation no vote on the merits and no reason decision making by the court. It's really a bad precedent or a bad idea for the court to be able to in effect force. The president stop defending a position through that mechanism. So i don't think it's a good i. I don't think that anything. The administration did when it ultimately issued the new narrower moratorium and defended in court. I don't think it came close to passing the line of the types of orders in the types of context of the justice department. Always defense all right. Let's talk about the role of the justice department. Here alan the body of your piece raises questions about where the justice department actually was on these questions and whether the president was or was not getting advice from the justice department. Walk us through your concerns here. Sure so the the main concern here is that when the administration went from the position that did not have the legal authority for the cd to implement a new moratorium in a flip that to the position that the cdc did have that authority doj does not appear to have been consulted or at least based on the reporting and the public statements of the administration. There are good reasons to think that doj was not consulted. So the first is that in the you know several articles now that have been reported on this. There's no indication that doj was part of that process in addition There's a reporter that asked attorney general garland directly whether doj signed off on the on the second cdc eviction moratorium garland kind of declined to answer that question and then the administration has said that it has actually gone into some detail about where it got. Its legal advice. And that did not include doj particular this the as check pointed out the administration consulted a variety of constitutional law scholars. It consulted the white house. Counsel's office which of course is sort of within the white house itself and then consulted the lawyers at the cdc and we can talk about the pros and cons of all of those sources of information but again there is a really to my mind striking absence of consultation with doj who one would think whether it's the opposite legal council civil appellate. The office would be the ones providing This sort of advice now. It's it's quite possible that doj didn't provide this advice because their position had never change. They thought the original. Cdc moratorium was fine..
The Lawfare Podcast
"office legal counsel" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Going to be the political accountability and then the accountability for people who are at the intersection of the political accountability and potentially had involvement or coordination and so that pertains to potentially members of congress who had knowledge of or contact with individuals who planned or participated or inspire the events of january six so except political accountability part. That's always going to be harder. I view the january six select committee as number one the last best opportunity to provide an authoritative historical narrative of what took place. And i think that that is a primary role that this committee will effectively be able to complete and i think a demonstrated that through the first hearing that it conducted with the four officers last month in terms of providing their firsthand testimony to the physical and mental struggle and fight that they had to engage in to hold off the attackers on january six. The justice department will want to first of all protect the equities of its criminal prosecutions. And so it's not going to make any decisions that as it relates to the select committee's work. That's going to interfere with that prosecution as to ben's question regarding the justice department's role in contempt if the justice department goes in that direction and decides to be willing to enforce contend. I could see that more playing out as it relates to the former justice department employees that it has issued the memo. Release saying that they can testify. I think that is a much harder. Decision and i think less likely as it relates to members of congress because then it will get into very separation of powers issue so i think the justice department will play more of a role when it pertains to former executive branch or even current to the extent that there were any career people involved or knowledgeable. It'll play more of a role pertains than than it than it necessarily will. As it pertains to members of congress the members of congress participating as witnesses in the january committee investigation is going to be the last and hardest piece to achieve chuck. Let me come to you. Last this point about executive branch officials. I think is israel one because i think that gets at this question to say what are the limits that the justice department main counter one day depending on the scope of the january sixth inquiry and is worth noting. Of course you know. They are members of the same party between the house. Leadership and the administration. There's lots of opportunities for them to deconflict. Unofficially before anything really comes to loggerhead so to some extent it may be unlikely that we're ever going to hit those limits. But how is the justice department situated self to address them. And i'll note one thing that i thought was an interesting aspect of actually the mo brooks memo that might have ramifications for this year in finding the mo that mo brooks is participation in the january. Sixth rally was not part of his official duties. The just actually site in office legal counsel opinion relating to the line drawn for hatch act purposes for executive branch officials specifically white house officials as to what activities are political And what activities are part of their official duties for haczek reimbur- and funding related sort of funding purposes and appropriations purposes. And if i'm not mistaken actually believed that. Same precedent o. L. see precedent is actually sited in cases about executive privilege as. Well i'm not hundred percent positive. I believe that's the case. So is that actually an indicator about where the line is as justice. Department plausibly said yet january six rally participation in there by executive branch officials or in the planning for it activities around it that's political activities are vested interest. There is much less or is it. Still going to face heartburn about areas in which the the one six inquiry is going to want to push. Yeah you know. I'm not sure that the mo brooks memo really gives us a lot of guidance about what's going to happen down the road with executive branch officials or with the interaction between the white house and the justice department to may brooks was relatively easy. Call fell on the other side of the line. It would be hard to articulate a basis for why his comments inciting a riot fell within the scope of his official duties. I don't think of it as a great predictor but scott. If you don't mind. I wanted to back up. Just a little bit and comment on something carries it. I think she's absolutely right that the select committee is our last best hope for an historical accounting of what happened on january sex. It seems to be the last hope. Because i can't imagine anything coming after it and it seems to be the best hope but only by default recently picked up the nine eleven commission report and i. I have students in my class that i teach read excerpts from it that i reread the preface. The prefaces really interesting. Fourteen months after the attacks on september eleventh two thousand one congress passed the statute which a created the nine eleven and republicans appointed five members. Democrats appointed five members and those ten men and women came together and issued a stunningly good report. Having interviewed twelve hundred witnesses and reviewed. Millions of documents and without dissent was no minority report. There was dissenting report. That was just a single report. An all ten Individuals agreed to it which seems like A relic not something likely to repeat itself anytime soon and moreover they write in the preface That they were working during a time. And this is a quote. Great partisan divide So great partisan divides are not unique to twenty twenty one either and they also noted in the preface that they came to the table with strongly held opinions. Certain views about what happened in what ought to happen. But they listen to each other they debated and oh my god. They occasionally changed their minds by listening. And that seems like a relic of the past two. And so while i think is right. This is our last best hope. It's not a particularly good. help that we're going to have anything even approaching the nine. Eleven commission's work and that is deeply regrettable given what happened on january. Sixth at. It's deeply regrettable. Given the need for a true. Bipartisan historical accounting. We're not gonna get it and That is. I think really really a shame. We will have to leave the conversation there. Carry cordeiro chuck rosenberg and benjamin witness. Thank you for joining us here today. On the law fair podcast the law. Fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the brookings institution our audio.
All In with Chris Hayes
"office legal counsel" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"And i just got to say talk about like world. Historical cowardice from william bar. William more knows what the guys up to william bar could have gone public but he leaves rights and utterly like preposterous encomium to the greatness of donald trump knowing full well the man is attempting a coup essentially in the moment and then just hands over the job of protecting american democracies from said khuda. Jeffrey rosen and pieces out work buddy. Yeah and it's it. You know up until the sycophantic resignation letter and and him leaving you know he did actually stand up to trump on this one issue. He was his lackey accomplice for two years. But on this issue he said there was no evidence of election fraud and that did set the stage. I think for. Jeffrey rosen to be able to push back a little bit so i. I am no fan of bill bar but i actually think on this topic. Other than advocating the throne. Yes speak he did resist. That's true and maybe it's because i'm a journalist and because i have a television show that this occurs to me and it doesn't occur to functionaries department says but like no one goes public. Everyone just plays a good soldier and doesn't say anything the guys rattling the cage trying to overturn election for the love of god say something publicly that just me daniel goldman thank you very much appreciate it. Donald trump to campaigns earned tire presidency keeping his tax returns hidden. Today we found out the game of keep away may finally be over decision to withhold. Donald trump's tax returns from house. Democrats has been reversed by the garland justice department and so the man's taxes must be released congress. What happens when they get them. Does this mean the public will get to see them. And why is this happening now. Don't go anywhere that's coming up next. Can you give us any insight into what the real reason is that. The president has refused to release his tax returns statements that he had said to me that what he didn't want to have an entire group of think tanks that our tax experts run through his tax return and start ripping it to pieces and then he'll end up in an audit and until ultimately have tax deductible consequences penalties and so on now. Wrong not wrong. Donald trump managed to keep his tax returns secret his entire time in office which was no small feat. Democrats have been trying to access them for years. Twenty seventeen congressman bill pascrell of new jersey. Ask the chairman of the tax writing house ways and means committee to formally request ten years of trump's tax returns. The chairman was republican. You shut down the upper where republicans lost control the house for your later. Congressman richard neal. A democrat from massachusetts became chair of that committee giving him legal authority under statute to formally request trump's tax returns and a few months after being sworn in. He knows he would be doing just that. The irs miss the deadline to hand them over. Neil issued subpoenas to both the treasury department in the irs. When that didn't work he sued then in september. Two thousand nine hundred and haton district attorney sivan's got into the act subpoenaing. Trump's accounting firm for eight years of attackers trump took that matter always supreme court while continuing to challenge the oversight powers the house ways and means committee and he lost the election shortly after he lost a supreme court case in february. This year. The supreme court allowed manhattan prosecutors to obtain trump's taxes. They haven't early this month. Trump's company and its top money man were charged of course with tax fraud in manhattan court today however the ways and means committee finally got some movement on their years. Long quest the justice department on america arlen said that trump's tax returns must be released to congress which means soon they could potentially even be made public betcha. Woodrow's swan national political reporter for politico has been tracking these developments and she joins me now so betsy minor standing there was a an opinion from the kind of it's kind of like the supreme court inside the justice the office legal counsel c which gives a legal direction that basically that office overturned previous set guidance that was offered during the trump administration is that right. That's right when trump's lawyers were in charge of the office of legal counsel bay said that members of congress were acting in bad faith even though congress claims to have a legitimate legislative purpose they actually just one of the tax returns to embarrass trump. Therefore treasury didn't have to give them to congress that was the trump. Doj's argument now that it's biden's lawyers who are running doj including this office of legal counsel. What they've said is look even if some members of congress are hoping that the president will be embarrassed by the contents of his tax returns. Hard to imagine why he would be. Maybe some of them are hoping that what what doj says even if they are hoping that it's not germane to the question of whether or not congress actually has a legitimate legislative reason to reach for these tax returns and doj the llc within the justice department confirmed that yes they do have a legitimate legislative reason. One really fun piece of history with all the good. That's cited in the doj opinion. Is that the reason. Congress got the power to pick individual people's tax returns. The reasons specifically this committee did is because of bribery corruption scandal. The law was changed in nineteen twenty four because congressional investigators during the teapot dome scandal. Which involved bribery belt that they were getting stiff armed by the irs. They carry that investigation out. They changed the law and the first time. A member of president's cabinet went to prison was the result of that scandal. So there's a pretty direct through line from the reason. Congress has this power to what they're trying to do with the power today. Yeah the i always found the justifications on the other side fairly tortured that they had to do with that congress's acting in bad faith. There had to be this legislative intent. It always seemed obvious to me..
"office legal counsel" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And that's a really important part and that's led by former ambassador samantha. Power susan rice. I'm sorry susan. Rice samantha power with a usa. Id but one of the masters is running that office and it coordinates policy all across the government and so it gives us an entry point on church state separation issues to all of these different offices so to the department of education which is really important to health and human services to the small business administration. All of these places where so much of the bad policy was happening under the trump administration. We now have an entry point into not just what the white house for symbolic things or executive action but to this massive machinery that not many people know about that's called federal rules making and that is where so much of this happens. It's not it's not law. It's not pass through congress. It's not even an executive order. It's this process that takes a long time but has often the force of law and we have to go. We have to follow that process. And that's that's a really big deal for us because it touches on so many areas of people's lives that they don't even think about that they don't they don't recognize until much later or until something has gone horribly wrong as is too often the case. So let's let's talk about neighborhood partnerships right that second half if i can kind of reconstruct the argument and straw bought. The religious argument in two thousand went sort of something like this. We have a an increasing reliance a lot of that due to republican gutting of social programs But allow me to editorialize on that but we have an increasing reliance on a social charity programs And the initial argument was hey look we have churches and faith based organizations that as part of their mission statement as part of their overall group. They also deliver actual charitable service. Now in a. I think on the frontline in policing those kinds of organizations that style themselves as charities and like you know had head over to you know war torn land with boxes full of bibles instead of boxes full food but that that is not to say right you and i. All of us have partnered with religious organizations that have been willing to work with secular folks on social justice issues. So right you know i. Can i get that kind of initial argument of. Hey give us a seat at the table. Don't shut us out. If we want to also help in distributing food to the homeless but let us participate. It seems to me there are really two problems as an atheist. Win when i look at that from the outside looking in like i think both of these were really well realized so for the past two decades. The first is seat at the table. Quickly expands to becoming the entire table and the second is that As there's less and less oversight of the programs you get more and more You have a kind of monolithic voice in the room and it's like well you know. Of course every time we send you know apples to orphans in ukraine like they should have a bible verse wrapped around them and that sort of thing. And so. When i think about it i think in addition to sort of making connections with the larger political infrastructure. I think okay part of why i want. American atheists in there is to reclaim the seat for secular charities at the table. And say hey. Let's not forget our overarching mission. And also be kind of policing those activities that turn into the opportunity for government sponsored proselytizing. I said a lot. I'll let you know those are those are all really important and correct points one of the core things that we walked in there as a coalition and said like what are some of the consensus asks the things that we want out of this meeting the that we're really concerned about number one is exactly what you said about making sure that when the administration is reaching out to community groups on the ground to do things like increase vaccination up to uptake which is a big thing right now. They're primarily focused on cove response and making sure that underrepresented communities are getting access to vaccinations because we know that For example people in the city of newark right now is unfortunately like in new jersey The city of newark is blogging behind the rest of the state in terms of vaccination uptake. And how do we leverage groups that have infrastructure on the ground to help people get vaccinated. Is what a lot of these meetings have been about for the last the entire this administration search and so what we asked was. You know when you're thinking about these programs we have this network of you know almost three hundred chapters slash affiliated local groups all across the country We'd like them to be welcome for part of that as well to help get access to those resources to make sure that they're older folks are folks who are not able to get out of the house or whatever are able to get out there and get vaccinated or that they can help staff and volunteer at these places that are that are doing things like that. So that's point number. One is just making sure that you're not limiting yourself to okay. Who do we have a easy call. Call sheet to make so we're only working with the catholic church right like the churches very pyrotechnical. You call one guy who calls tradition of minister Budget priests who call. They're deacons and so on. We don't quite have that but we do have really dedicated volunteers on the ground in all fifty states that do a lot of really good community work and so how can we all work together to make sure that everybody in this country has access to vaccines and who is getting the call. We wanna make sure that secular people in atheist groups and community groups are part of those those programs and to let them know that that network exists. and so that's already been a success. You know we we've been added to all of these meetings and we're we send them out to our affiliate so they can participate. So that's i mean that's an easy ask that's great. I do want to dwell. I'm glad that you know it wasn't easy. Ask an certainly you know happy that that that was the result from this administration should not pause too lightly on on that like ethic for a lot of folks the picture of organized atheist groups. Is you know trying to get under god taken off the money as opposed to which we should by the way no right. Yeah throw at us under the bus on that right but to point out. Oh hey don't we're we're out there on the front lines helping people get vaccinated because we believe in science. We don't have you know contrary organizing beliefs to the detriment of society. Anyway please kill people people that mobilized to bottle and create and br homebrew hand sanitizer. I mean that was a big project that a number of are group's did and donated thousands and thousands of bottles of hand sanitizer to their local community. Because they had the wherewithal to do that masks so on the the amount of time that spend on things like you said you know taking in in god. We trust off the money or removing ten commandments. Monument is much smaller at the local level than doing things like running a soup kitchen or feeding the feeding someone who's experiencing homelessness or anything like that so that that was point number one is just. Hey we have this network. You should utilize it because you know a quarter to a third of americans or non religious and a half. Don't attend church regularly. So let's make sure that those people are being spoken to as well so that was number one the other one or the other point is specific policy asks things that underpin a lot of the worst impulses of the trump administration and government memos. And you know things that are this. You just make your eyes glaze over if you're a casual observer of all of this and but that underpin so many of the legal opinions from the department of justice's office legal counsel memos that you know say why or how all of these executive agencies have to treat these cases that come down over the years like trinity lutheran. We don't have anything in our. And so what we walked in there and said hey you know. There's a bunch of these memos and sort of detritus that's built up over years. We should really clear this out and have the person who's running the department of justice's civil division some of it's in the supreme court by the way that detritus that out at the rather large dust bunnies that have but that's the thing is that it's not just in the courts. The executive branches in the executive branch as well that these memos just sit and they burrow in everywhere and they get referenced and so all of these rules are based on faulty premises. And you know bad foundations and so we need to clear that out and actually have good analysis and get that fixed and that's not something that anybody campaigns on but it's the sort of thing that really strong knowledgeable advocates can ask for and can point to it within the federal government because they have finite amount of time and they've got hundreds and hundreds of groups clamoring for attention and so we can point them directly to the spot pardon expression chapter and verse of exactly what the problem is..
"office legal counsel" Discussed on KGO 810
"That's implicit it in starting all this insurrection President Trump his crony Giuliani Trump Jr and then that Congressman, How can you go ahead and charge all of these people? These three quarter drug dealers and not go after the guy that's bringing this stuff in from the country? Sometimes it takes me about an analogy, but sometimes it takes more time. To build the case against the drug lords at the top, and you use the people who are you know this the street dealers you use those people in order to build a case that ultimately leads to the top, If that's what I don't know if that's actually what they're doing, you know that if the FBI they have that office legal counsel memo, office of the Legal counsel memo From years and years ago that says that you cannot indict a sitting president. It is not the law. It was an opinion that was written by the legal counsel's office in the White House many many years ago. Isn't it Hasn't Here's another thing tapped? I mean, I'm a security adviser for for for an operation Nowhere needed to what's going on here nationally, but It is so easy to trace people who fly. It would be so easy to get a list of all of those people that flew into the nation's capital two days prior to that up until that day, and just go back and just trace that, of course, is going to take a little bit of time. But that is one of the easiest things that you can do. A Zafar is finding out who was their flight in two days before And flying out the day of or the day after, but you have too much, but you also have to be very careful because if you're looking at people who are flying to a rally, that's a permitted rally those air legal of legal activities that they're engaging in. There's nothing illegal about doing that. Now, if it's simply part of the investigative process in order to interview those people to see if their potential witnesses, that's fine, But you have to have evidence that they've done something illegal. Before you open any Kind of an investigation against those individuals. In the meantime, I you know, they said that this is gonna take a long time. It's gonna take more than months and frankly, I found that encouraging because that means to me that this is going to be an ongoing investigation that serious about pursuing these individuals and let me to say this It's about damn time. It is about damn time. These groups are so utterly dangerous to America. They've infiltrated everything you know. There were police officers who were participants. Police officers who flew in from other places around the country who participated in this. There were members of the United States military and retired members of the military. And, you know, we've spoken of this before that the military has had this huge problem with right wing extremists and racist within there. Ranks. There again is a situation where you're operating under the UCMJ A and you can't figure out a way to get those individuals out of the ranks of the military. I can discharge him. You know, just discharge him court martial. Um you participation in these kinds of groups is a violation of the uniform code of military justice Do not tolerate it any longer. It is too serious to Molly Coddle. It is too serious not to take these things for what they are true threats to American democracy will be right back. 80 88 tennis the telephone number. 80 88 10. This is K G o In your attic. Fully.