Welcome to the Mccarthy report card. Guess where I rich larry discuss with Danny Mccarthy, the latest legal and national security issues, this sweet, what else the f b? F a rest. If summaries you're not already following us on a stream service, you can find everywhere from spotify to itunes. Please give this pod gaston, Annie, Mccarthy, the glowing indeed gushing, five star views they deserve on itunes. Now without, further do. I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle zen castor, none other than an impressive, a they. How are area good, annie you I'm great I am, I have come from the reaches of the and are domain in the great pacific, northwest,

where, where we had done like about three days of stuff that we did there in seattle and I not only heading I'm sorry The gray and Chile it Y yeah. We, I don't think we saw the sun the whole time and I went out of the hotel one time to get coffee and you don't I the in every hotel, in every room. They have an umbrella because it see addle, you know, frank and that some heat home he will look at the door you know, you gonna tell everyone you're a tourist with that umbrella. Well, you know, but they it. I can port. Not only did did we made great and are readers and and fans, but I think I also in our mutual friend who so likes my my. a rich. How are you greeting

ugly ass, an encouraged me to carry on so around its version so annie it is speaking of someone who is in a place where actually, the weather is perfectly fine, sonny and delightful about the legal situation and maybe the psychological state, so much so. Sam bank bagman freed the former head of effort he acts who lasting? Somehow I don't quite know why. If currently thirty, two billion dollars and has been on this bizarre media torme. You know the layers of italian, please whatever you do. Mr bank than free, please shut but he's sir, did this long interview with andorra sorkin avenue at times at the new york times conference remotely using bahamas he's done, podcast you scheduled, I believe today too do congressional testimony. But he's arrested last night, and this has raised a question.

The timing? So, let's go let's go to that before we get into more than the merits of the case. And stem or what what specifically the case against him. because there is there some people like wait, a minute say: have this criminal suspects use who's out there you know talking at Why would you want to tell these key Talking in up this morning and you, why can't you just arrest him this afternoon is: is this an effort to get him the shut up to such how sweet this under the the rug, what was gone out with tiny any Well, we don't know everything yet rich barometer puzzled by both sides. This is as you are. You're. Not only is it like basic common sense, defined lawyer advice to a client who you know is under in negation and there is a high probability that he's going to be charged, and you know, as we discuss the last time we talked about this on the pot guest when thirty two

billion dollars, disappears the justice department. Tens did not ignore that those people get charged right. So This guy is not only you'd, think getting it as from lawyers but his parents are stanford law. Professor, I mean you, they give anybody on the planet is getting the right it I would be it would be. Sam bagman freed And just so, you know, people understand The reason I would advise somebody even who I believed was innocent to zip it what if I had any reason to believe the person was going to be charged with a crime because it just common sense that if you think even you're going to be charged based on something that is that that is baseless, there is no way of talking the government out of bring the charges. What you want.

Is number to see what they have, meaning what is the theory of the prosecution, which is what you get when you get the indictment? You not only get the charges, but you An understanding of what they believe is is the graves grovel men of the I'm, but you also start to get the discovery and you figure out who what the documents are that they thinker incriminating into the witnesses, are so it just makes common sense not dig into a position and make it easier for them to build a case around. You know you gratuitous narrative. You would much rather wait to see what they have before you start to worm, say things that can be. used against you in court so from his stamp I have no standing in no clue as to why he thinks this would be a good thing to do, but from the justice department standpoint I gotta say I mean he's not only been doing this speaking too,

or that you ve been referring to rich, but he supposed to testify in a house banking committee hearing today and so we're not just talking about like you know, another stop on the press tour. He was going to be under oath answering. You know probably very hostile questions and the just his department- could only conceivably benefit from that right. It's not really talk his way out of it or explain it all away. Well, obviously, because it's a sealed indictment right so be it, they had already charged them. It wasn't like. You know that that was that ship has sailed, but there was no reason they had to unseal it. You know they couldn't just left it sealed until he finished testifying yeah. So here's the I mean We don't have all the answers on this, and now hopefully will get them at some point. But you know this then again me thanks that yeah

and the places where these billions of dollars that have disappeared from F tax, and its related corporations among them, the prominent places that they went, wasn't a campaign contributions according to what the reporting is bank when freed was second only to george soros. In this past cycle. Income tribulations to democrats. He made forty million dollars or so in contributions to democrats. So you easily see that perhaps them rats on these set on the house. Banking committee warned enthusiastic about the prospect prospect of them less elden and other republic into were loaded. Forbear apparently spending several hours, pointing out that millions of espionage, Dollars went into the

offers of democratic campaigns, and it turns out that, stolen money and Oh they still have the contributions, the people who you know it, did their money lost there sure it's a lot of them, their life savings so I imagine that would have been an uncomfortable prospect. Now on a point out that this is there's another side of the story here. So you know we don't, However, we- and that is that bank men freed claims that he gave as much money to republicans as he gave to Democrats thee? the distinction he says is because he's intimidated by what I always called the media democrat complex and he used, word and describing this, but he said that they go crazy. When they find out that you ve, given any money to republicans so basically

the story is that his car, tribulations, he says, are to the extent that disclose all kinds of contributions under the campaign finance laws. They were the ones to Democrats and that for the most part he gave republican, some dark money that doesn't have to be disclosed that he covered his bases with with both of them annie here is according to the reporting to have given a lot of money to pack spit were controlled and influence spy. You know chuck, Schumer Mitch, Mcconnell nancy Pelosi. But he says he was an equal opportunity, political contributor, There is a guy who worked with him at after tax. And one of its related, the capital investment subsidiaries who it is

blared, I think, to have given twenty three million to republicans in you know the the cat if accounts that at least some of the more or less you have to disclose. So you know, I I feel like I'm speculating. It seems to me that the likelihood is because the public, now What about there is he's? A heavy hitter, democratic contributor and report begins we're gonna capitalize on that at this hearing today and emphasise how much of his money went to Democrats did, that would be a conceivable reason why the Democrat wouldn't want to have the hearing, but, let's let us be clear: the decks crash on the committee did not cancel the hearing, in fact that having the hearing having it with this guy john re, who the new ceo who's. Your basic job is done. Wine down after tax. believe he was the enron guy. They brought him to do the same thing when an enron imploded. So

We know how that's gonna go right. He's too new guy he's the new brunette sweeps clean, so anything in his life. That is that the bank was freed ever did that was that was bad or or could be it It is bad he's gotta he laid out on the table, because this guy wants a clean slate night. That's that's the way this this process works, but you know that arkwrights didn't cancel the hearing. he claimed that they wanted to question espionage, as much as the republicans or any one else did, and it was. the justice department that dumb that poland Blog on this in a sense, the indiana aborted, the testimony, because, once at once he was charged. There was no way that he was going to work, testify

together the area that are you so sure. Well, I am not sure about anything any more. Every week you ask me that close it and every week of, unlike you, don't know that things that used to make sure no longer a reliable. So I don't know that, don't you know the at the best. I can guess sorry is in terms of him. None of you, so much is just he's used to to persuading people you know and probably chemist himself politicians are like this bill. What was was like this just thinking he can talk in his way out of any two empty talk: people out of thirty two billion dollars that that that sir Big price tag around your words and your convinced at least you can commissioner commit some innocent at can convince them to feel sorry for you a little bit you know I am sure rum if things go the way their teed up to go. Well, I'm sure he'll meet a lot of people in federal prison. Thy way tells you know, but but let me just say richard the it, the only other theory that I've heard that at least sounds like you know it

could have, it could have Thing to it, although I am I am I doubter- is that it. They have had something to do with the bahamas, that he's going to be charged with similar fraud by the book, Unless authorities, this is it. This company is an antigua company. That was in hong kong, but that he moved to the bahamas. and that's where he is now because of the trader, I learned from listening, occasionally listen to the new york times park ass, the daily, which is annoying but informative, and his big, it is big trays. First, big big hit was sir, that some sort of deal following hong kong and an arbitrary there's a cripple well. We'd makes it would make sense to get at hong kong right once the once the Chinese swallowed eddie. And then he went to work he wanted

bahamas, but the thing is you know, the united first of all, the united states government has a very good relationship with the bahamas. Government, which the former of outpost of the british commonwealth there's an extradition treaty, there is a view very, very high likelihood that the bahamas units parties are going to extradite the sky to the united states the american government in addition to having friendly right relations, if the, if it ever got into a contest over it, there's ways they have that they can put pressure on them. You know that before mr reliant and let him be prosecuted in america first so it you know, I don't ike. It's hard for me to believe that the justice department thought,

it needed to race. After a month after a month of letting the sky talk, you finally get a chance to have him under roads for hours and you'd. Think you have to race to the courthouse to to get 'em charge. Just because you can so you can beat the bahamas to the punch. And the second thing is it's not like the. U s and the bahamas are the only countries involved there are a lot of countries whose nationals lost money. So you know that this is gonna, be in terms of extradition and proceedings and all that stuff that it's gonna be a lot more complicated than just the? U s and the bahamas. So I find it hard to believe that they are. The plug on this on account of our concern. at the bohemian so extra year, sbs an end this company's collapse. Legal jeopardy and you fear should fear they gonna be charged you down there in the bahamas is very waited too

get out a dodge and it was with the authorities stopped him. If you try to get on a plane to thailand or something and and where would you go if you're trying to get at it? Does I think that likely rich. So we have been heard. At the moment. when exactly they got the arrest warrant, one the young. We know that it was. The indictment was unsealed today it could be that they got it as late as yesterday. They said that the arrest that was executed yesterday was on pursuant to the american arrest warrant that they that the Burma's honoured, at least in terms of of apprehending him. I think if there was any inkling that He was about to pack up and go to some country that didn't have an extradition treaty with the united states, they would have. They would have not gone the fact that they went and got an indictment rich means that they have

their ducks in a row well enough that they could go away do a presentation to a grand jury and get them to vote an indictment. You don't after a arrest? Somebody that way you can you can If we have an agent right out of a sworn complaint and you get arrest warrant in We issued on that so they had had to move faster than they moved they could of, and I you know the countries that don't have extradition treaties with the united states. Don't strike me as a kind of places that this guy it would want it now and, and they and you know, the other thing is I dont know if he's got money squirreled away, but I doubt he has it squirreled away in those places. So again, I think it's a butt Probably the reason he's talk, talk talk other than the young so: the sociopath gum traits that you describe

indigo is because the walls are closing in on him. I mean he that talks himself out of this or he's going to get prosecuted. Now we we see he's going to get prosecute yeah, and so that the charges are related to the deal, a lead the intermingling of funds after tax propping up this, this other firm of His era was a direct directly owned it any more, but he had started at amanita researcher, yeah. So rich. I think it's it's like it. It's worth talking about. The charges are a little bit extensively, I'm not gonna filibuster on it, but here's my my point in its the same one that I made when we first talked about this a week or two ago, and that is that this fraud I rises out of the context of crypto.

But to me it's not a representative crypto scheme in others. It nothing about crypto in particular, that may this fraud scheme unique or made it happen. He could have been defrauding people by getting them to invest money, to invest stock invest fine art to invest any number of assets and again as I continue to think that this is one of the anti crypto scheme. Because to repeat what I said previously. You know the whole idea being Crypto is to avoid having to have people like s, bf and outfits like after tax, which is in exchange, idea is to get rid of the middle man so that you don't have to have an intermediaries, either vouchers. For a transaction or facilitating and transaction. You ever want to be in a position of giving

up what are known as the keys that you have to your your crypto assets. You never port with them, because to part with them. You give an inch media very well. I will, but I should say, as you never port with them until you, the only brought with them with, though the one on one other sites, a transaction that you're trying to do in exchange you never port with them. turns of of with them an intermediary or a broker, who is bringing the seller enough and the buyer or the boat with the borrowing the lender together. That's the whole idea crypto is that you don't have to do that. You can do this private transactions and get out of the box of yellow govern. monitoring, government regulations etc. So you know, I think, there are a lot of people who are intrigued by crypto

and as a result, they dont know all that much about it and ethical most people or on capitol hill? Frankly- and as a result, exchanges are attractive them cause. You know they allow you to sort of transacting crypto without knowing all that about it. You know you got a you're going to kind of a central place where these transactions take place. So I can the stand the lure of it, but it's really counter to what crypto seeks to achieve and again I should underscore that you know I'm an agnostic about this. I don't know a thumb I haven't figured out of cryptographic upon these scheme, or if it's the future, it's one of visa. Some there there are very smart people on both sides of that question. But I do understand that you know too, for it to work the way it's supposed to work in the way the blockchain technology intends for it to work. You're not supposed to have to give your ass,

that's or control of your assets. To somebody like girl s bs, in his and his exchange. So the reason I I Wanna lay that out is, if you look, the charges that were returned today. They are there, standard charges that you would see, in any securities fraud, there's wire fraud on lenders stairs wire fraud on customers there securities and commodities fraud counts, the union gringo here I think, is that he's got is a conspiracy to fraud, the united states, which is connected do not anything to do with crypto. So you know when I first saw conspiracy to defraud the united states by, but that caught my attention I said, That's gonna, be the way that they say that the main or that they use the nature of crept out defined, securities laws or whatever, but then you read the count it's got

the thing to do with that. It's it's about the foot campaign financed laws. not that you know. Basically what he sang is that a fact, with the government of saying in fact- is that by the way sbs allegedly conducted these transactions. He flouted the Restrictions against corporate of donations to campaigns against full disclosure of who the people who was kind, the funds are because what he did hear allegedly again is you know he took, customer funds that had been invested in after tax, converted two alameda for his own use and then the guise of alameda. He did things like capital Ments europe purchases of high end property and political contributions, so

you know basically the government's theories of the political contributions that they should have been disclosure. What the source of the actual funds were, of course, to people who were with the source of the fund's, didn't actually know that they were robe contributing to camp aims, but that's the theory and at what I just an end as you would expect, because the young, the federal prosecutors in the fbi work here. in glove with the s he see in these investigations and then were typically happens, is what happened. This morning, which is unsealed in court. Was an indictment. Annesley see civil complaint, but It basically mirror one another- because they're all working heather, so the yes, he see allegations on civil side, or a mirror image of, of what the young the criminal

allegations are the yes, he see doesn't include the campaign. Fine and stuff goes, that's not really. They are an ambit of, though of securities regulation, but other than that you know, description of the scheme is exactly the same. So what I would just underscored a people is these are the typical charges that you would bring in any securities case, and I think it underscores numb one that This is not a unique kind of fraud because of the nature of krypton. that's just it. It's a standard fraud pattern where people invest money with somebody who allegedly turns out to be a fraudster? Who you know converts the can Role of the funds to another corporate straw show that he has control over and then he uses the, but them before his own purposes, and it could. I and it could happen to, to wit, with respect the kind of asset, and the reason. The second point is the reason that I want

stress. This is what you are going to hear. and are already hearing from the bible dennis from the yes, I see and from Democrats who are hard to regulate cripple. oh in an overarching way, is that the implosion at after tax shows the urgency of doing that, and you know, they'll be a rush to try to do something. Sarbanes oxley like except you know, will be four run crypto, thing- I would just stressed a people- is what you I have here is not. A kind of a systemic melt down it's up to you have asked and all, but it's not. It doesn't suggests that, like the ito, crypto may be bad or it may be good, but whether it is a reason what have

here is just as it is just a standard fraud, and what I worry about is the old rama manual. You know nothing, but a crisis go to waste sort of. Thank you, sir, Andy, we have some more twitter revenue with a rebel revelations. We've had a revolution at twitter and we have had a revolution and- and we have revel the viva viva la the old regime is out in exile and the new regime is going through the class by documents and released them as we speak. So we had another thread from a very wise about how they decided to ban, suspend donald trump, and it was still you don't really know it's illuminating, but Ultimately why they, they said it is at a go. Well, I mean basically they they were getting a lot of pressure and a lot of people were just appalled by trump. So, even though they didn't have a violation they're trying to somehow

the right way and said say to two january six tweets, one of which is why I really appreciate when voting for me if five million patriots there in trying to come up with a way for that to be a threat and then they're coming up with trying to come up with a way for a trump thou not to attend, the inauguration of Joe Biden to be a threat. Now that things are obviously a threat or an incitement at every single level that they come up with. It erodes his head. The potential to be and sight meant and hurt civic integrity shows as they catch all. They use a lot. So what do you make of it? It may be think that the oh running twitter with the same people running the january six committee. Did I mean look, I think, when we saw the first and I don't mean this is not very wise- is terrific journalist, but I think that when we saw the first closures

and then we realise that the another there was another side of that story which I wrote about over the weekend, which is the year of the fbi, a part of it that I think, matt tb may have been, old into under selling but young because of that Jim bakers situation. I think we have a better read on that now than we did at the beginning, but other than that rich. I kind of feel like. you know the same the first conversation we had about this, in which I think we observed that it was. It was very interesting to read all this stuff, but it really didn't it wasn't surprising given right, you know for everything that we were watching at the time- and I just I can Then you to think that dumb the more. We learn. It's not that it's uninteresting and I'm happy that its being disclosed, but it really is more of the same right. So you had you know you had people who were

but mainly of a of very painted ideological point of view who had the the motive and the opportunity to censor and they censored stuff and as happens frequently with some I'm sure progressive say that the that conservatives do this too, I don't think it's it. It's true. It's certainly not true on the level that they would say, but I you know I mean This is progressive, as as we ve known them forever, which is to say they figure out what outcome they want, and then they reason backwards to rationalize why it was thing that had to be done under the circumstances. So you know they were you know they were it's a sensor, various law, including trump, and they back figure. You know that the one thing that was Britain was they were going to do the censorship, they all the interesting thing then becomes like what what

rationale and how can ordered as compared to other rationales they adopt at other times and how inconsistent was it with what they claim their terms of use or an how much did everybody know that the whole thing was fraudulent. You know the interested thing, thinking very wisely reporting is that there were people there. Who just said you know I'm not really comfortable doing this. You know it it aligned with their ideological preferences. They still thought that you know we should number one like them role, carnea theory of you know: don't do it because little blow back on us right, you know but your heart is in the right place, but you're just gonna do harm than good and then thereof people. I think you're, just gonna they're they're good faith left a centrally who may not see the world politically. The way we do, but there are at least on us than they like you know we do. of these rules and you're supposed to check these boxes before we sent a statham we're not doing, but it would.

Oh what a day they didn't have. The young the power or the ground swell or or though you know whatever it would have taken to reverse what they were doing and then becomes europe, same pattern that we see in life all the time, which is that you know people make a mistake and It's always easy, twenty twenty two to look at it, in hindsight and say why didn't they just stop digging happens at the moment as you, you keep digging right because you have to otherwise admit you're wrong So what do you think by the way? I knew we talked about this week to a gouty the letter from me, fifty one for our intelligence officials was suggested. The Biden laptop was russian disinformation. I didn't for a while, now republicans take the house. They should call every single these people up. They should have an testify that haven't

through the consequences of this very much of what is actually a good idea, but I think it should happen and now Kevin Mccarthy. You is obviously under a lot of pressure to to get too to eighteen votes, to secure his speakership and once wants to cater to some, in types who are not to vote for him for speak, he sat on Sunday. I believe it was yes they're all gonna be subpoenaed cities. That does it make Do you know yeah sure does accept that you know as a public spectacle. I think it'll be very disappointing, because you know all these guys will not all of them, some of them or whatever, but you know some of them are pretty smart and I at some of the target, some of them or whatever, okay, I think we get fewer yeah cause I've, I've, I've known a lot of whatever over so, but I do think like the smoother ones, do

taking a brennan. In particular, a clap has been down this road vote, yet both of them been caught lying to congress. So it's not like this is said no all right. What do you know that? but they all what they are the saying he said they had good faith reasons to believe that this was russian disinformation, but the only way they could disclosed that would be to expose class- information, so that only have to do that and closed session and then we'd, never find out when their basis was so. To my mind what I would you rich is. I would take the I mean I'm not against calling them too defy in fact, if they were actually going to testify. I'd like to be the one question them myself, but well here, but but one way or the other, I think it would be frustrating as a public presentation, but I do. You think that if you want you, don't you hit them where they live, take away their security clearance alone

sk I still have secured if they would lay need security clearance is where they shouldn't have security clearances, and I and then I think it should not only be take away their security clearances, but make it publicly known that you took away security clearances, because they try. get on them for partisan reasons. It almost matter to me how much What they said was not coming the us and how much of it was who said in good faith, the count exterior makes it completely unavoidable that this was done for any other reason, except to try, it on their credentials for partisan purposes, which is exactly what they're not supposed to do so who, who can revoke their security clearances while the president can, but I think congress can do a bit like the Republican controlled house can do a sense of

house resolution saying that these guys should be there's no current reason for them to have it that they appear to have abused if a partisan purposes, and it should be, it should be withdrawn. and then, if the administration doesn't want to do it, then we have something to run on in twenty twenty four. You know I mean that's like casey strangle saying there, can anybody here places came right, I mean that's what you do you dig it up. you want to set up what the what the neat divides are between the two parties and that something that republic should want to run on, and democrats should be ashamed to have to defend. So we gotta get you outta here in a couple of minutes and you have a hard out, but let's hit one other thing that we've talk about over the weeks and we have a verdict in their trial. guarding the alleged access, as is the trouble organization guilty on all counts. It turns out- and this is a

Criminal organization eta turns out how significant as is well. I think it's sick. Applicant wretch, it's not like financially ruinous the. what we're talking about is the the manhattan district attorney's prosecutes. Of the trump organization, so to be clear, donald and his adult children who are officers of the church, organization were not defended then the trial the sky. Island weissenburg was defined but he had played guilty in terms of how this usually goes rich in hell politicized, it is european Security is generally dawn process the organization use we have theirs. If there's felony wrong doing what you do. Is you prosecute the nub of the office, the company who yeah the people who did it

but the reason you don't touch, the corporation is not that it It's a lay up to prosecute the corporations. The easiest thing on the once you get a corporate officer who says I can edit fraud Business was my screen for committing the fraud, then or like ninety five percent, the way home to getting criminal conviction The reason that you don't see it happen much more often is you have the common sense that the internal prosecutors discretion maw innocent people tend to get hurt. Then guilty people get punished. If you take if you ruin a corporation by an indictment because what ends happening is people who have you know innocent people who have jobs company will lose their jobs at the company has to go under people who do business with. The company and

old money by the company, the creditor stare baxter, whatever they'll they end up getting harm financially. If the government takes it takes a going the sad. So it's not that they can do it. You can always prosecute the year the entity, but they don't what because its? It sir generally thought to be more harm than good, but This is another instance where you know the rules for tramper different and it's another indicator of something. We talk from time to time, which is that these stay put secures and state attorney general therein elect did positions not appointed positions like that. On the federal government. So you know, if you're a big city, district attorney like Alvin, brag or a blue state, the general like Tis james, it's good politics to go where the donald trump anyway but just james. Her campaign was

she was gonna go after tromp if they alighted are right. So you have to take all the arms is kept. I was sick at exactly right, but it out and all said so, there's a political dimension to this, of course, but another political dimension is These counts is fifteen herb seventeen hours They were minor counts to the point that dumb at most the company is looking at one point: six million dollars and fines, which you know is it it's kind of a drop in the bucket when you're talking about businesses of even of this kind of scale, But the thing is there felony counts. So you know, politically speaking, from here on out. It will be accurate, the new york times to say, as I think they said, you know in times in the first story that I get of like within minutes of the jury's verdict coming in the times story that I think head. If it was ninety

I counted the word. Felonious really think that was right, but you know that the come. is now going to be said again and again and again that the that the company that donald trump has run for four decades as a phelan, which is not which is obviously politically damaging. for him and then in terms of just how they do business rich. You know I mean Yes, they may be minor felonies, but still felonies, which means you know a business. Like trumps business has to be able to borrow money. They happen have relationships with banks. They have to be able to get insurance, they have writers who they have to. You know, have relationships with that. They do not admit that they can structure transaction so that they can. You don't do business unexpected paid later and then you know, pay

of whatever loans they have all. That stuff becomes very difficult when you have to start disclosing that your felon and it makes it much harder, to do business and then, if you couple that, with the fact that James is coming around the mountains. This was like the minor drop in the bucket case. The the da's case here comes tis chains with the? U not the other, these civil case that we ve talked about where they're talking about decades of fraud that's the case. The prosecutors didn't want to bring, but you know still she brought it and the first thing they ve done is they ve gone to one of their friendly new york. Judges get out the role democrats here and judge, put the trump organization under monitoring so now you know if they can't do business in new york, you have to wonder where they do business requisite. You know, I mean it's its roots. Are its therefrom queen summoned a cigarette? It's a new, your company there,

making it is hard, if not impossible, as they can for them to do business in new york, and I just think you. to go back to our Our discussions have been about this all along what I would just caution. People is that I'd love to be able to tell you this is the end. You know that we're done what the donald trump legal proceedings were much closer to the beginning, then the end. You know we're getting a proliferation of them and we now a special council and we all know the history especial councils. Is they generate crimes? You no soap this is going to be a lot of that has already been walls closing in coverage of the special cast which make it for all, I know, might be true this time well. I do think you know we ve talked about this before too, but I do think they think they have the documents case in the bag. You don't they, the january six k site. I think I hope

you, don't bring a case, and I think that needs a lot of work. But that's the case they want to make. pretty sure they think they have the documents, cases pretty black and white needle, they can bring at any time you have. So that saw the time we have this podcast produced by the incomparable. Sarah showed he thinks I want for listening to. Thank you and hearty thanks roach